Caroline Lucas has been using her holidays to go after Graham Stringer for having the temerity to dissent from the alarmist line on climate change and in particular the Energy and Climate Change Committee's report on AR5.
The good lady has written to Ed Miliband, asking him what he is going to do about this appalling situation, in effect demanding that one of only two scientists on the Energy and Climate Change Committee be removed.
Dear Ed,
I’m writing with regard to yesterday’s report from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee on climate science and the 5th assessment report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I’m sure that we will both welcome the Committee’s unambiguous endorsement of the integrity of the science and the compelling case for urgent action to cut carbon emissions and secure a global climate deal.
However, in light of your criticism of the Prime Minister for having climate deniers in his Cabinet, and your comments about the harm caused to our country by delay and dither on climate change, it was especially disappointing to see Graham Stringer, a senior Labour MP, join forces with Conservative MP Peter Lilley in an attempt to undermine the findings.
As you will have seen, they set out their views in a statement rejecting the Committee’s report. They claim that it is “hard to justify” the IPPC’s conclusion that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
They also regurgitate the so-called global warming ‘pause’ argument to back up their stance, despite repeated clarification from the Met Office and others that this is a basic misunderstanding of the science, the difference between a prediction and a projection, and the effect of heat uptake by oceans on changes in surface temperature.
Whilst their words may be chosen meticulously, their intention is crystal clear: to undermine the scientific case for rapid, drastic action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, which is now stronger than ever.
This seems at odds with your challenge to the Prime Minister on his lack of climate leadership at the height of the winter floods. In PMQs, you argued that it was unacceptable for David Cameron to appoint Ministers who don’t ‘believe’ in man-made climate change. You rightly called for climate change to be treated as a national security priority – at home and abroad – to protect the homes, businesses and livelihoods of our constituents.
Yet now we have a senior Labour MP casting doubt and confusion on the issue of climate change. This is exactly what you condemned as undermining of action to properly protect the British people from the threats of climate change.
You were applauded when you told the Conservatives to ‘get real’ on climate change. But what message does it send when one of just a handful of Labour MPs chosen to sit on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is an outspoken advocate of dither and delay, engaging in persistent attempts to thwart action on climate change?
As you know, I am a strong supporter of efforts to rebuild cross party consensus on the need for an ambitious response to climate change based on science and equity – domestically and internationally. Like other backbench MPs, I work frequently with politicians from across the political spectrum on these issues and will continue to do so.
That’s why it’s particularly disappointing to see a Labour MP, in a position of influence, actively trying to prevent the UK from taking the action required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – and indeed to secure the benefits of our country leading a rapid transition to a zero carbon economy.
Of course, there are many aspects of climate change science and policy that would benefit from a great deal more debate, for example the compatibility of the UK developing a whole new shale gas industry, however well regulated, with our international commitment to keep climate change below 2 degrees. But attempting to mislead the public on the scientific evidence that climate change is caused by human activity, and will have devastating impacts if urgent action is not taken to reduce our carbon emissions, is deeply irresponsible.
I would be grateful if you could clarify Labour’s position on these aspects of climate science, your views on Graham Stringer’s comments and his role on the Committee, and any actions you will be taking as a result.
Thank you in anticipation of your reply.
Caroline Lucas MP
I think I'm right in saying that the Labour party now chooses select committee members by secret ballot, so one assumes that this will go precisely nowhere.