Some interesting comments in this speech

[PowerSwitchJames]

SPEECH BY RT HON DAVID MILIBAND MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD
AND RURAL AFFAIRS AT THE TUC CONGRESS BRIGHTON 12TH SEPTEMBER

I'm delighted to be the first Secretary of State for the Environment to
speak at the TUC conference.

I am here for a simple reason. Trade unions have played a critical role in
the last 100 years in changing society for the better, at home and abroad.
The battles for the NHS, the minimum wage, equal rights, all needed trade
unions, and the fights against fascism, apartheid and global poverty needed trade unions too. If you want progressive economic and social change, you need pressure from the bottom up as well as legislation from the top down, and for that you need trade unions and trade unionists.

Today, we need trade unions again, for the biggest man-made challenge we face - arresting and reversing climate change. We need your values, your internationalism, your partnership with business.

You are debating big issues here this week. Pensions. Manufacturing.
Public services. But I believe that climate change should not be seen as an add-on to your work, but integral to it. I say that for three reasons:

- You are concerned with the interests of ordinary working people;
climate change will affect them first.

- You seek a more just balance of power between different parts of
society; climate change requires that shift in the balance of power.

- You believe in a more human and sustainable model of industrial
society; climate change speaks to that mission too.
Let me set out the five key facts that frame this debate:

First, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now higher than at any time for at least the last 740,000 years.

Second, this is resulting in an unprecedented rise in temperature at the
earth's surface - in our own country alone ten of the warmest years since
1850 have occurred since 1990.

Third, as a result life on earth is changing: in the UK, spring is now
arriving on average 10 days earlier than thirty years ago, and according to a report by the Association of British Insurers, global annual claims for
storm damage could increase to $27 billion by the 2080s while flood damage in Europe could increase by a further $120 to $150 billion.
Fourth, if this carries on unchecked, we could see temperatures rise by
between about 1.5 degrees and 5.8 degrees by the end of the century. This will push many of the great eco-systems of the world to irreversible
decline. Arctic sea ice in summer has already thinned by about 40% in the
last 50 years. Fifth, the effects will be on people not just nature, social as well as environmental, short term as well as long term. It is not just the hot weather that caused over 30,000 extra deaths in the 2003 European heat wave.

Two thirds of the world's population live within 80 kilometres of the coast
and up to 80 million people's homes could be flooded each year in coastal
regions by the end of this century.

100 years ago the crisis in our economic system was social. Today it is
environmental. Just as people were exploited 100 years ago, with disastrous consequences, so natural resources are being exploited today, again with disastrous consequences. And just as our social contract has developed over the last 100 years to give rights to working people and responsibilities to powerful interests, so today we need an environmental contract based on rights and responsibilities too.

We need to do more with less. The industrial revolution transformed the
productivity of labour. Mechanisation and mass production allowed more
products to be produced with less labour. We need a similar transformation in productivity in the way we use energy, water, and other natural resources. We must find ways of producing goods and services within the environmental limits we face.

The good news is that we are already seeing some significant innovations. In transport, a hybrid car is about 30 per cent more efficient than its
petrol-only equivalent. In housing, changes since 2002 to the building
regulations will deliver a 40 per cent improvement in the energy efficiency
standards of new houses. In household appliances, an A++ rated refrigerator is 46 per cent more efficient than an A-rated equivalent.

We need a shift from energy sources that emit high volumes of carbon dioxide to low or no carbon energy sources. The TUC's support for a balanced energy policy is close to Government thinking. It means renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power. It means investment in carbon capture and storage to make coal a low-carbon fuel.

And if faced with the choice, after all the investment in renewables and carbon capture and energy efficiency, between nuclear power and oil or gas then the environmental requirement is to choose nuclear.

And we need to recognise that carbon emissions are our problem not someone else's. Environmental pollution is the unacceptable face of capitalism; it is the pollution of what we hold in common, our atmosphere, because no one takes responsibility for the consequences. The answer is not to abolish markets, but make them work, by ensuring that we factor the cost of carbon into our economy in the same way as we factor in the cost of labour.

In each area, the technologies are emerging. The challenge is to accelerate innovation, deepen investment, and ensure these technologies move from the margins into the mainstream.

This is where politics and policy come in. Some say the responsibility is
with government and international bodies. Some say it is with business.
Others say it lies in numerous changes by citizens. The truth is that we
need an alliance between all parts of society: citizens, businesses, unions
and government.

First, the government has set out its commitment to climate change:

- to work at international level, within the EU, with China, India
and the US to forge an international consensus on stabilising climate
change; you cannot be an environmentalist without being an internationalist

- to change our domestic policies on energy, transport, and housing
to lower carbon emissions; the Energy Review identifies changes - beyond
existing measures - to reduce emissions by 20 to 25 Million tonnes of carbon per year, and so reduce our emissions in 2020 by up to a quarter on 1990 levels.

- and to lead by example, make government carbon neutral, saving
800,000 tonnes of carbon - the equivalent taking over three quarters of a
million cars off the road - and use Government procurement to promote
sustainability.

Second, we need businesses and the public sector to play their part. At each stage of the lifecycle of our products - from how they are produced,
distributed, and how the waste is disposed - we need to re-think how we can be more energy efficient. Central to this is the idea of emissions trading. This means setting a cap on the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions within the economy and allowing businesses that require more than their share of carbon emissions to buy extra carbon allowances from businesses that have reduced their carbon emissions. This creates a direct incentive to become more energy efficient. Energy intensive companies are already part of a European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, and as set out in the energy review, we are developing proposals to extend emissions trading to other
large businesses and public sector organisations.

But the responsibility does not just lie with governments or business. It
comes down to the actions of citizens too. Individuals' electricity, gas and
transport decisions make up 44 per cent of total emissions in the UK. The
decisions we make in our everyday lives - the home we live in; how we
travel; the products we buy - cumulatively have a major impact.

Government has to play a role in enabling people to live differently -
through information and better labelling; through help addressing the costs;
through better regulation. More recently, I have proposed the idea of
extending carbon trading from businesses down to individuals - so that the
whole economy will be covered by carbon trading.

But all these changes can only be done if backed by the strength of trusted
organisations in our community.

On average we are each responsible for just over four tonnes of carbon
dioxide emissions every year. There are over six million members of the
TUC-affiliated unions. That means TUC members are responsible for some 25
million tonnes of carbon emissions every year. And we need you to help your
members get them down:

- your commitment to create 1000 climate change champions in the
workplace is very welcome

- your commitment to make the TUC carbon neutral is leadership by
example

- your contribution through TUSDAC - the trade unions sustainable
development advisory committee - and as contributors to government
initiatives on energy and climate change is partnership in action.

But we need more:

- if you are in the private sector, energy efficiency is not just
vital to competitiveness but environmental industries are a source of new
jobs and new industries

- if you represent teachers or council workers you can lead change
in every school and every community

- if you work in the voluntary sector you can lead change in your
workplace and set an example to the wider community.

Every year we should pledge to reduce our carbon footprint; to measure
whether we are making the shift towards a low-carbon economy; to redouble
efforts as consumers, and as campaigners.

The voluntary organisation WWF have looked at the way we use carbon in this
country, and calculated that we are consuming natural resources as if there
were three planets not one. Three planets worth of Carbon dioxide. And
consuming three planets' worth of resources when in fact we have one is the
environmental equivalent of childhood obesity - eating until you make
yourself sick.

Our challenge is one planet living. One planet environmentally secure,
socially just, economically prosperous, not just for some people but for all
people. It is a project that already motivates millions, and with your help
we can motivate millions more.

[frankd2689]

I had one of my county concillors in for an hour at the weekend discussing
PO. He assures me that the subject will feature in their (Lib-Dem) Brighton conference this month.

I can't see a mention on the agenda though.

However, with the political conference season looming, it might be interesting to monitor for mentions of oil depletion.

Do you have to be a member or journalist to attend Fringe meetings ?

[johnhemming]

I am not sure. I am going to the conference.

[oobers]

We need to do more with less. The industrial revolution transformed the productivity of labour. Mechanisation and mass production allowed more products to be produced with less labour. We need a similar transformation in productivity in the way we use energy, water, and other natural resources. We must find ways of producing goods and services within the environmental limits we face.

But the responsibility does not just lie with governments or business. It comes down to the actions of citizens too. Individuals' electricity, gas and transport decisions make up 44 per cent of total emissions in the UK. The decisions we make in our everyday lives - the home we live in; how we travel; the products we buy - cumulatively have a major impact.

A report by the Office for National Statistics in 2004 had this figure at 85%:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ ... 11Perry%22

For 2001, the Environmental Accounts (spring 2004 edition) published total UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 718.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent of which 155.8 million tonnes were directly emitted by domestic households through heating, cooking, driving, and so on. Indirect emissions from electricity generation, travel on public transport and final consumption expenditure are estimated to be 456.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent indicating that households were directly or indirectly responsible for 612.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

One way to cut that back is to regulate the businesses etc (make them do more with less) that offer the products and services that households buy so that households can consume as they do now but use less direct and indirect energy and emit less. On the other hand, when households - ie individuals - are ultimately responsible for all this energy use, I believe it is government's job to tell us to use less and for us to respond by changing our ways. Okay, it is not going to happen anytime soon but if we could change people's attitudes, it would be a whole lot easier to cut energy use that way than through efficiency gains. If people don't know what is going on, they will just take the savings and use them elsewhere, resulting in more energy use and more emissions

[biffvernon]

In household appliances, an A++ rated refrigerator is 46 per cent more efficient than an A-rated equivalent.

Interesting that the A to E categories are now so outdated that we have to have degrees of A-ness