[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 139 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12045-S12047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of 
my colleagues a speech given by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on 
September 14, 2004 at a dinner to mark the 10th Anniversary of his 
Royal Highness' Business and Environmental Programme. Prime Minister 
Blair states that he believes that climate change is the world's 
greatest environmental challenge. In the speech, Prime Minister Blair 
outlined his plans to have the G8 countries take action to address the 
causes and effects of climate change by reaching three basic 
agreements. The prime minister hopes to reach agreements on the basic 
science on climate change and the threat it poses; a process to speed 
up the research and deployment of technologies to meet the threat posed 
by climate change; and ways to meet the growing energy needs around the 
world without further impacting the world's climate.
  I ask unanimous consent that the prime minister's speech on climate 
change be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Prime Minister Tony Blair Speech on Climate Change

       The 10th anniversary of His Royal Highness' Business and 
     the Environment Programme marks what is now recognised as the 
     premier international forum for exploring sustainable 
     development in the context of business.
       1. Over the coming months we will take forward the wider 
     sustainable development and environment agenda. Margaret 
     Beckett is working on a comprehensive DEFRA 5 year programme 
     to be released this year and a new sustainable development 
     strategy for early next year. This will deal with, amongst 
     other matters, issues of waste, recycling, sustainable 
     agriculture, all aspects of biodiversity; and fishing, and 
     will set out policies in each key area. For example, on the 
     marine environment, I believe there are strong arguments for 
     a new approach to managing our seas, including a new Marine 
     Bill.
       But tonight I want to concentrate on what I believe to be 
     the world's greatest environmental challenge: climate change.
       Our effect on the environment, and in particular on climate 
     change, is large and growing.
       To summarise my argument at the outset:
       From the start of the industrial revolution more than 200 
     years ago, developed nations have achieved ever greater 
     prosperity and higher living standards. But through this 
     period our activities have come to affect our atmosphere, 
     oceans, geology, chemistry and biodiversity.
       What is now plain is that the emission of greenhouse gases, 
     associated with industrialisation and strong economic growth 
     from a world population that has increased sixfold in 200 
     years, is causing global warming at a rate that began as 
     significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable 
     in the long-term. And by long-term I do not mean centuries 
     ahead. I mean within the lifetime of my children certainly; 
     and possibly within my own. And by unsustainable, I do not 
     mean a phenomenon causing problems of adjustment. I mean a 
     challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in 
     its destructive power, that it alters radically human 
     existence.
       The problem and let me state it frankly at the outset--is 
     that the challenge is complicated politically by two factors. 
     First, its likely effect will not be felt to its full extent 
     until after the time for the political decisions that need to 
     be taken, has passed. In other words, there is a mismatch in 
     timing between the environmental and electoral impact. 
     Secondly, no one nation alone can resolve it. It has no 
     definable boundaries. Short of international action commonly 
     agreed and commonly followed through, it is hard even for a 
     large country to make a difference on its own.
       But there is no doubt that the time to act is now. It is 
     now that timely action can avert disaster. It is now that 
     with foresight and will such action can be taken without 
     disturbing the essence of our way of life, by adjusting 
     behaviour not altering it entirely.
       There is one further preliminary point. Just as science and 
     technology has given us the evidence to measure the danger of 
     climate change, so it can help us find safety from it. The 
     potential for innovation, for scientific discovery and hence, 
     of course for business investment and growth, is enormous. 
     With the right framework for action, the very act of solving 
     it can unleash a new and benign commercial force to take the 
     action forward, providing jobs, technology spin-offs and new 
     business opportunities as well as protecting the world we 
     live in.
       But the issue is urgent. If there is one message I would 
     leave with you and with the British people today it is one of 
     urgency.
       Let me turn now to the evidence itself. The scientific 
     evidence of global warming and climate change: UK leadership 
     in environmental science.
       Apart from a diminishing handful of sceptics, there is a 
     virtual worldwide scientific consensus on the scope of the 
     problem. As long ago as 1988 concerned scientists set up an 
     unprecedented intergovernmental panel to ensure that advice 
     to the world's decision-makers was sound and reliable.
       Literally thousands of scientists are now engaged in this 
     work. They have scrutinised the data and developed some of 
     the world's most powerful computer models to describe and 
     predict our climate.
       UK excellence in science is well documented: we are second 
     only to the US in our share of the world's most cited 
     publications.
       And amongst our particular strengths are the environmental 
     sciences, lead by the world-renowned Hadley and Tyndall 
     centres for climate change research.
       And from Arnold Schwarzenegger's California to Ningxia 
     Province in China, the problem is being recognised.
       Let me summarise the evidence:
       The 10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990. 
     Over the last century average global temperatures have risen 
     by 0.6 degrees Celsius: the most drastic temperature rise for 
     over 1,000 years in the northern hemisphere.
       Extreme events are becoming more frequent. Glaciers are 
     melting. Sea ice and snow cover is declining. Animals and 
     plants are responding to an earlier spring. Sea levels are 
     rising and are forecast to rise another 88cm by 2100 
     threatening 100m people globally who currently live below 
     this level.
       The number of people affected by floods worldwide has 
     already risen from 7 million in the 1960s to 150 million 
     today.
       In Europe alone, the severe floods in 2002 had an estimated 
     cost of $16 billion.
       This summer we have seen violent weather extremes in parts 
     of the UK.
       These environmental changes and severe weather events are 
     already affecting the world insurance industry. Swiss Re, the 
     world's second largest insurer, has estimated that the 
     economic costs of global warming could double to $150 billion 
     each year in the next 10 years, hitting insurers with $30-
     40 billion in claims.
       By the middle of this century, temperatures could have 
     risen enough to trigger irreversible melting of the Greenland 
     ice-cap--

[[Page S12046]]

     eventually increasing sea levels by around seven metres.
       There is good evidence that last year's European heat wave 
     was influenced by global warming. It resulted in 26,000 
     premature deaths and cost $13.5 billion.
       It is calculated that such a summer is a one in about 800 
     year event. On the latest modelling climate change means that 
     as soon as the 2040s at least one year in two is likely to be 
     even warmer than 2003.
       That is the evidence. There is one overriding positive: 
     through the science we are aware of the problem and, with the 
     necessary political and collective will, have the ability to 
     address it effectively.
       The public, in my view, do understand this. The news of 
     severe weather abroad is an almost weekly occurrence. A 
     recent opinion survey by Greenpeace showed that 78 percent of 
     people are concerned about climate change.
       But people are confused about what they can do. It is 
     individuals as well as Governments and corporations who can 
     make a real difference. The environmental impacts from 
     business are themselves driven by the choices we make each 
     day.
       To make serious headway towards smarter lifestyles, we need 
     to start with clear and consistent policy and messages, 
     championed both by government and by those outside 
     government. Telling people what they can do that would make a 
     difference.


                               UK Action

       I said earlier it needed global leadership to tackle the 
     issue. But we cannot aspire to such leadership unless we are 
     seen to be following our own advice.
       So, what is the UK Government doing? We have led the world 
     in setting a bold plan and targets for reducing greenhouse 
     gas emissions.
       We are on track to meet our Kyoto target. The latest 
     estimates suggest that greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 were 
     about 14 percent below 1990 levels. But we have to do more to 
     achieve our commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 
     20 percent by 2010.
       Our targets are ambitious and we must continually review 
     and refine how we can meet them. In 2000, we published our 
     Climate Change Programme, which set out a comprehensive range 
     of policies aimed at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. 
     Tomorrow, we'll be setting out the details of this review to 
     see if it is achieving the necessary progress towards our 
     short-term and long-term emissions targets, and if not, to 
     see how we can do better.
       In the longer term, The Royal Commission on Environmental 
     Pollution's seminal report on energy concluded that to make 
     its contribution towards tackling climate change, the UK 
     needed to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent 
     by 2050. This implies a massive change in the way this 
     country produces and uses energy. We are committed to this 
     change.
       There are immense business opportunities in sustainable 
     growth and moving to a low carbon economy.
       The UK has already shown that it can have a strongly 
     growing economy while addressing environmental issues. 
     Between 1990 and 2002 the UK economy grew by 36 percent, 
     while greenhouse gas emissions fell by around 15 percent.
       But business itself must seize the opportunities: it is 
     those hi-tech, entrepreneurial businesses with the foresight 
     and capability to tap into the UK's excellent science base 
     that will succeed. Tackling climate change will take 
     leadership, dynamism and commitment--qualities that I know 
     are abundantly represented in this room.
       As part of next year's G8 process I want to advance work on 
     promoting the development and uptake of cleaner energy 
     technologies begun under the French Presidency in 2003 and 
     continued by the US this year.
       We need both to invest on a large scale in existing 
     technologies and to stimulate innovation into new low carbon 
     technologies for deployment in the longer term. There is huge 
     scope for improving energy efficiency and promoting the 
     uptake of existing low carbon technologies like PV, fuel 
     cells and carbon sequestration.
       This technology is coming out of the laboratory and 
     becoming reality in new fuel cell cars, combined heat and 
     power generators and in new low carbon fuels. The next 
     generation of photovoltaics are unlikely to need the now 
     familiar panels: smart windows could generate the power 
     required for new buildings. And carbon sequestration: 
     literally capturing carbon and storing it in the ground, also 
     has real potential. BP are already involved in an Algerian 
     project which aims to store 17 million tonnes of CO2.
       What we need to do is build an international consensus on 
     how we can speed up the introduction of these technologies.
       And there are already many great examples of companies here 
     in the UK showing the way:
       Ceres Power based in Crawley and utilising technology 
     developed at Imperial College have developed a new fuel cell 
     that has unique properties and is a world leader, and
       Just a few weeks ago Ocean Power Delivery transmitted the 
     first offshore wave energy from the seas off Orkney to the UK 
     grid.
       And these are not isolated examples.
       Understandably, climate change focuses minds on big, 
     industrial, energy users. But retailers are also working with 
     suppliers to reduce the impacts of goods and services that 
     they sell. I want to see the day when consumers can expect 
     that environmental responsibility is as fundamental to the 
     products they buy as health and safety is now.
       Government has to work with business to move forward, 
     faster. For example, we will help business cut waste and 
     improve resource efficiency and competitiveness through a 
     programme of new measures funded through landfill tax 
     receipts. We will follow up the report of the Sustainable 
     Buildings Task Group to raise environmental standards in 
     construction.
       The Carbon Trust is helping business to address their 
     energy use and encourage low-carbon innovation. In total, 
     efficiency measures are expected to save almost 8 million 
     tonnes of carbon from business by 2010, more than 10 percent 
     of their emissions in 2000.
       Our renewables obligation has provided a major stimulus for 
     the development of renewable energy in the UK. It has been 
     extended to achieve a 15.4 percent contribution from 
     renewables to the UK's electricity needs by 2015, on a path 
     to our aspiration of a 20 percent contribution by 2020. In 
     the short term, wind energy--in future increasingly 
     offshore--is expected to be the primary source of smart, 
     renewable power.
       Our position on nuclear energy has not changed. And as we 
     made clear in our Energy White Paper last year, the 
     government does ``not rule out the possibility that at some 
     point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if 
     we are to meet our carbon targets.''
       In short, we need to develop the new green industrial 
     revolution that develops the new technologies that can 
     confront and overcome the challenge of climate change; and 
     that above all can show us not that we can avoid changing our 
     behaviour but we can change it in a way that is 
     environmentally sustainable.
       Just as British know-how brought the railways and mass 
     production to the world, so British scientists, innovators 
     and business people can lead the world in ways to grow and 
     develop sustainably.
       I am confident business will seize this opportunity. 
     Cutting waste and saving energy could save billions of pounds 
     each year. With about 90 percent of production materials 
     never part of the final product and 80 percent of products 
     discarded after single use, the opportunities are clear.
       Local, practical sustainability: new schools, new housing 
     and re-invigorating `Agenda 21'.
       But Government can give a lead in its own procurement 
     policy.


                        New sustainable schools

       There is a huge school building programme underway. All new 
     schools and City Academies should be models for sustainable 
     development: showing every child in the classroom and the 
     playground how smart building and energy use can help tackle 
     global warming.
       The government is now developing a school specific method 
     of environmental assessment that will apply to all new school 
     buildings. Sustainable development will not just be a subject 
     in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and mortar and the 
     way the school uses and even generates its own power.
       Our students won't just be told about sustainable 
     development, they will see and work within it: a living, 
     learning, place in which to explore what a sustainable 
     lifestyle means.


                                Housing

       The economic and social case for new housing is compelling. 
     But we must also ensure that our approach is environmentally 
     sustainable. This means action at both the national and local 
     level. Heating, lighting and cooling buildings produces about 
     half of total UK carbon emissions.
       In 2002 we raised the minimum standard for the energy 
     performance of new buildings by 25 percent. And next year 
     we'll raise it by another 25 percent. The challenge now is to 
     work with the building industry to encourage sustainability 
     to be part of all new housing through a new flexible Code for 
     Sustainable Buildings.
       The new developments proposed in specific parts of the 
     south east including the Thames Gateway represent a huge 
     opportunity for us to show what can be achieved in terms of 
     modern, smart, 21st century, sustainable living: not just in 
     terms of reduced energy use, but also through better waste 
     management, sustainable transport and availability of quality 
     local parks and amenities.


                       Re-invigorating Agenda 21

       Many local communities understand the links between the 
     need to tackle national and global environmental challenges 
     and everyday actions to improve our neighbourhoods and create 
     better places to live.
       In 1997, I encouraged all local authorities to work with 
     their communities and produce Local Agenda 21 plans by 2000.
       There was an overwhelming response: from County Durham to 
     Wiltshire and from Redbridge to Cheshire, local people showed 
     what could be done. Next year, as a key part of our new 
     Sustainable Development Strategy, I want to reinvigorate 
     community action on sustainable development.


                            Action in the EU

       From this base of domestic action we move out to action 
     Europe-wide.
       We believe, as I know many of you do, that trading is the 
     most cost effective way to reduce emissions. The emissions 
     trading scheme which we have advocated and pushed

[[Page S12047]]

     in Europe is of great importance to our goals, and to those 
     of Europe. The establishment of a carbon trading market 
     throughout the world's most important economic area next year 
     will be an enormous achievement, and will change the way 
     thousands of businesses think about their energy use. Cutting 
     carbon emissions is the way the future will be, and we have 
     repeatedly said that there are advantages to British industry 
     from early action.
       In Britain and throughout the world, the expected rapid 
     growth in demand for transport, including aviation, means 
     that we must develop far cleaner and more efficient aircraft 
     and cars.
       I am advised that by 2030, emissions from aircraft could 
     represent a quarter of the UK's total contribution to global 
     warning. A big step in the right direction would be to see 
     aviation brought into the EU emissions trading scheme in 
     the next phase of its development. During our EU 
     Presidency we will argue strongly for this.
       And the UK is taking a strong lead globally.
       From Europe, we need then to secure action world-wide. Here 
     it is important to stress the scale of the implications for 
     the developing world. It is far more than an environmental 
     one, massive though that is. It needs little imagination to 
     appreciate the security, stability and health problems that 
     will arise in a world in which there is increasing pressure 
     on water availability; where there is a major loss of arable 
     land for many; and in which there are large-scale 
     displacements of population due to flooding and other climate 
     change effects.
       It is the poorest countries in the world that will suffer 
     most from severe weather events, longer and hotter droughts 
     and rising oceans. Yet it is they who have contributed least 
     to the problem. That is why the world's richest nations in 
     the G8 have a responsibility to lead the way: for the strong 
     nations to better help the weak.
       Such issues can only be properly addressed through 
     international agreements. Domestic action is important, but a 
     problem that is global in cause and scope can only be fully 
     addressed through international agreement. Recent history 
     teaches us such agreements can achieve results.
       The 1987 Montreal Protocol--addressing the challenge posed 
     by the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer--has shown 
     how quickly a global environmental problem can be reversed 
     once targets are agreed.
       However, our efforts to stabilise the climate will need, 
     over time, to become far more ambitious than the Kyoto 
     Protocol. Kyoto is only the first step but provides a solid 
     foundation for the next stage of climate diplomacy. If Russia 
     were to ratify that would bring it into effect.
       We know there is disagreement with the US over this issue. 
     In 1997 the US Senate voted 95-0 in favour of a resolution 
     that stated it would refuse to ratify such a treaty. I doubt 
     time has shifted the numbers very radically.
       But the US remains a signatory to the UN Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change, and the US National Academy of 
     Sciences agree that there is a link between human activity, 
     carbon emissions and atmospheric warming. Recently the US 
     Energy Secretary and Commercial Secretary jointly issued a 
     report again accepting the potential damage to the planet 
     through global warming.
       Climate change will be a top priority for our G8 Presidency 
     next year.
       Recently, I announced that together with Africa, climate 
     change would be our top priority for next year's G8. I do not 
     under-estimate the difficulties. This remains an issue of 
     high and fraught politics for many countries. But it is 
     imperative we try.
       I want today to highlight three key parts of my G8 
     strategy.
       First, I want to secure an agreement as to the basic 
     science on climate change and the threat it poses. Such an 
     agreement would be new and provide the foundation for further 
     action.
       Second, agreement on a process to speed up the science, 
     technology, and other measures necessary to meet the threat.
       Third, while the eight G8 countries account for around 50 
     percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is vital that 
     we also engage with other countries with growing energy 
     needs--like China and India; both on how they can meet those 
     needs sustainably and adapt to the adverse impacts we are 
     already locked into.
       Given the different positions of the G8 nations on this 
     issue, such agreement will be a major advance; but I believe 
     it is achievable.
       The G8 Presidency is a wonderful opportunity to give a big 
     push to international opinion and understanding, among 
     businesses as well as Governments.
       We have to recognise that the commitments reflected in the 
     Kyoto protocol and current EU policy are insufficient, 
     uncomfortable as that may be, and start urgently building a 
     consensus based on the latest and best possible science.
       Prior to the G8 meeting itself we propose first to host an 
     international scientific meeting at the Hadley Centre for 
     Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter in February. More 
     than just another scientific conference, this gathering will 
     address the big questions on which we need to pool the 
     answers available from the science:
       What level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-
     evidently too much?; and What options do we have to avoid 
     such levels?;
       This can help inform discussion at the G8.


                               Conclusion

       The situation therefore can be summarised in this way:
       (1) If what the science tells us about climate change is 
     correct, then unabated it will result in catastrophic 
     consequences for our world.
       (2) The science, almost certainly, is correct.
       (3) Recent experience teaches us that it is possible to 
     combine reducing emissions with economic growth.
       (4) Further investment in science and technology and in the 
     businesses associated with it has the potential to transform 
     the possibilities of such a healthy combination of 
     sustainability and development.
       (5) To acquire global leadership, on this issue Britain 
     must demonstrate it first at home.
       (6) The G8 next year, and the EU Presidency provide a great 
     opportunity to push this debate to a new and better level 
     that, after the discord over Kyoto, offers the prospect of 
     agreement and action.
       None of this is easy to do. But its logic is hard to fault. 
     Even if there are those who still doubt the science in its 
     entirety, surely the balance of risk for action or inaction 
     has changed. If there were even a 50 percent chance that the 
     scientific evidence I receive is right, the bias in favour of 
     action would be clear. But of course it is far more than 50 
     percent.
       And in this case, the science is backed up by intuition. It 
     is not axiomatic that pollution causes damage. But it is 
     likely. I am a strong supporter of proceeding through 
     scientific analysis in such issues. But I also, as I think 
     most people do, have a healthy instinct that if we upset the 
     balance of nature, we are in all probability going to suffer 
     a reaction. With world growth, and population as it is, this 
     reaction must increase.
       We have been warned. On most issues we ask children to 
     listen to their parents. On climate change, it is parents who 
     should listen to their children.
       Now is the time to start.

                          ____________________