With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of new projections for the UK's future climate. A summary will be placed in the Vote Office and full details can be found on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website.

The House knows that climate change is one of the greatest challenges we face. The world's climate is already changing: the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990, including every year between 2001 and 2006. In the UK the 2003 heat wave led to over 2,000 excess deaths, and yet average temperatures that year were just 2° higher than normal. In 2006 the south-east experienced a severe drought. Eight million people in the region are dependent on rivers for their water supply. In 2007 we saw widespread flooding across the country, and a storm surge came within 10 cm of overtopping the defences at Great Yarmouth.

The projections we are publishing today—more than 4,000 maps on the website—give us a clear sense of what we might be able to expect over the next 100 years. They represent the best science we have on how our climate is likely to change; and they are a call to action. I want to thank the scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and many others for bringing home to us how these changes in our climate—with a greater likelihood of heat waves, flooding, drought, and coastal erosion—will affect our society, and how important it is that we reach a deal at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen this December. We are, of course, already taking significant steps to cut our emissions. With the Climate Change Act 2008, we became the first country in the world to set legally binding carbon budgets.

Across the UK, the projections show a range of climate changes up until the end of the century based on three possible greenhouse gas emissions pathways: high, medium and low. Broadly speaking, the world's emissions are currently closest to the medium pathway, although there is still a risk that we could be heading for the high one. While we cannot be absolutely sure what will happen in future, and there are uncertainties—these projections are not a long-range weather forecast—they do show the probabilities of potential changes for the UK, and that is a future that we must avoid.

The projections based on the medium emissions scenario show that by the 2080s—within the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren—we could face an increase in average summer temperatures of between 2° and 6° C in the south-east, with a central estimate of 4°. They show a decrease in average summer rainfall of 22 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humber and in the south-east, which is already short of water, and an increase of 16 per cent. in average winter rainfall in the north-west, with increases in the amount of rain on the wettest days leading to a higher risk of flooding. They also show a rise in the sea level for London of 36 cm. Temperatures would rise even more under the high emissions pathway, which could mean peak summer temperatures in London regularly reaching over 40°.

Those results are sobering, and we know that those changes will affect every aspect of our daily lives. The first clear message is that only by cutting emissions through a global deal in Copenhagen can we avoid some of the extreme changes that the projections describe. Moreover, even if we achieve our international target to limit global temperature rise to 2°, we will still have to live with some level of change. That is because it will take 30 years for past emissions to work through the system, so the next three decades of climate change are already set. By 2040, what was exceptional in the summer of 2003 will have become normal.

The second message of these projections is therefore that we must plan to adapt to changes that are now unavoidable—and this is a job for all of us. That is why we have more than doubled spending on flood and coastal protection since 1997, and we are on course to provide better protection for about 160,000 more homes across England. We are taking action to tackle water scarcity and improve water efficiency. For the first time, all Government Departments are producing their own adaptation plans, which they will publish by next spring.

The NHS now has a heat wave plan to protect vulnerable people from hot weather. The Department for Transport has reviewed its design guidance for roads, looking at drainage capacity and new road surfaces. With the Department for Communities and Local Government, we are already working with more than 50 local authorities that have made adapting to climate change a priority in their local area agreements.

All local authorities will in future have to consider adaptation when taking planning decisions, and from today all major Government investment will have to take into account risks from climate change.

In the Climate Change Act 2008, we took the power to require public bodies to adapt and to report on the steps they are taking. Today I am launching a consultation paper proposing the first 100 organisations, including Network Rail, the National Grid, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, that will be required to tell us what they are doing. I am placing copies of that consultation paper in the Library of the House.

The economic case for acting now is very strong, as the Stern review made clear. By investing in flood defence, for example, we estimate that we can reduce the annual cost of flooding by 80 to 90 per cent. in the years to come. There may also be some economic opportunities, for tourism and agriculture, for businesses developing adaptation technologies and for jobs in new infrastructure projects.

Climate change is going to transform the way we live. These projections show us both the future we need to avoid and the future we need to plan for. As well as cutting emissions, we have to start making changes today. I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and for his courtesy in briefing me this morning.

This week, a report on global climate change impacts in the United States showed that climate change is already affecting water, energy, transport, agriculture, ecosystems and health. Those impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase. These new Met Office projections reinforce the US report and make the scale of the challenges facing our own country startlingly clear.

Does the Environment Secretary agree that these data again tell us that it would be a serious mistake to suggest that climate change will have only benign impacts in the UK, or that we will somehow be insulated from the worst effects? Some people claim that even if global temperatures are rising, it is a cyclical event. Is that not a dangerously flawed and even complacent view? Will he confirm that the temperature of the planet is already at its highest, and that the rate of change is accelerating?

Given the gravity of these assessments, we agree with the Environment Secretary about the importance of the forthcoming Copenhagen summit. There clearly needs to be co-operation on climate change mitigation and adaptation measures at international level, but is it not essential that for Britain to be seen as a world leader, we cannot just go to Copenhagen and ask other countries to sign up to an agreement without being seen to be delivering at home? Over the past decade, the UK's carbon emissions have flatlined, and he himself has admitted that the Government will not meet their 2010 reductions target.

The Secretary of State says that the Government are taking significant steps to cut emissions, but effective measures require more than setting targets. Practical steps to decarbonise the UK's economy are now essential. Will the Government adopt the Conservative party's low-carbon economy proposals, including an immediate upgrade in the energy efficiency of homes and a smart electricity grid so that we can consume energy more intelligently?

We need to adapt in this country for temperature changes that we will not be able to avoid. Is it not the case that that aspect of the climate change agenda has been too much overlooked, despite the significant known risks of increased flooding and coastal erosion, the implications for our road and rail network and critical infrastructure, the loss of wildlife habitat and the impact on health? Can the Environment Secretary confirm that the cross-Government programme to assess the costs and savings involved in adaptation will not even begin to be developed until 2011? When will the climate change adaptation sub-committee meet?

The greatest climate change risk facing the UK is flooding. The floods of two years ago were a reminder that what we are talking about today can have a devastating impact on people's lives. Can the Government explain why one in four major flood defence projects have been delayed since then, and why the majority of the recommendations of the Pitt report on the 2007 floods have not yet been implemented?

The impact of rising temperatures on our natural environment, agriculture and water resources will be significant, and it could be severe. We are already facing biodiversity loss and water shortages in many areas. Is it not time to consider a radical new approach to ensure the sustainable management of natural resources? Do we not need a regulatory framework that incentivises the conservation of water? To help wildlife adapt and find new habitats, do we not need to think beyond traditional protected areas and start to create new green spaces?

The new plans are a welcome update to the last climate change scenarios, which were produced in 2002, but have these projections not been delayed on several occasions? The national flood risk assessment, which has been informed by the data, has also been delayed by several months. Does the Environment Secretary recognise the need to balance the regular provision of information, to keep people updated with the latest projections, with the need to provide a degree of certainty for those making long-term plans and investment decisions, at least to the greatest extent possible?

One of the authors of the US report said this week:

"The most important thing...is that the impacts of climate change are not something your children might theoretically see 50 years from now."

Is not the message of the Met Office's projections not only that action to reduce carbon emissions is essential to avoid very serious climate change events in future, but that we need to begin preparing now for significant changes in the environment that we can no longer avoid?

I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman said about the message that the projections give us. If there are those in society who somehow think that climate change is not happening and we do not need to worry, and that we can pull up the bed covers and hope it will all go away, they are profoundly mistaken. That is why I believe the publication of the projections today will have an impact, and a lot of people will have cause to think about what the future may hold if we do not change it.

With respect, it is not true to say that the UK is not delivering on its own commitments. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are one of the few countries that will not just meet its Kyoto commitments but do more than that. Frankly, when one looks around the world, one finds a lot of countries where that is not the case.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned smart meters, and there is a plan to roll them out over 10 years. As he knows, we as a nation are investing a significant amount in renewable energy, and we are producing more electricity from offshore wind than any other country on the planet. The consultation on coal, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was responsible, set out proposals that will give us the toughest regime for any future coal-fired electricity generation of any country in the world.

On the adaptation sub-committee, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Sir John Krebs has been appointed to chair it, and I hope to make an announcement very soon about the other members. It is not the case that the programme is not going to start until 2011. A cross-Government programme is already under way, but the national risk assessment must be pulled together by that date.

With respect, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the progress that we have made in implementing the recommendations in Sir Michael Pitt's report. What he said is not Sir Michael's view, and he is in a better position to make judgments than either the hon. Gentleman or I. We have made a lot of progress, and I shall shortly report to the House with a further update on what has happened since I last reported in December.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about new green spaces. He drew attention to the sites of special scientific interest that we currently have. They reflect what is special now, but a changing climate may alter that. One thing that will have to adapt over time is the system we have in place to safeguard what is special. We must recognise that climate change will have an impact on that.

On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I want to be straight with the House and say that there is a balance to be struck. As he will know, this is cutting-edge science and an enormous amount of work has gone into producing the projections. Those involved should not apologise for one second for taking the time required to get them right. However, he is correct to say it is important that we get the information out. The 2002 projections were for then, and the new ones give us a much better assessment of the probability of the change. He knows, as does the whole House, that there is no absolute certainty, but I think we have struck the right balance. It will be for everyone who sees the projections to make their own judgment about the message that they send us, which is pretty clear, and the action that we need to take to adapt.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an impressive, timely and comprehensive statement. May I urge him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to resist the temptation to cover the superb wild uplands of Wales and other beautiful parts of this country with thousands of wind generators, not one of which would be built without a direct or indirect subsidy from the British taxpayer? Will he get on with the much more sensible and much cleaner way of generating energy—a new nuclear power station programme?

There are places in the country where it would not be appropriate to put wind turbines, including some of our most beautiful landscapes. However, the biggest obstacle to more onshore generation of electricity from wind power is planning permission, followed by issues to do with the grid connection. It has therefore been easier to get agreement offshore. In the end, we cannot pick and choose because we will need all such means of generating energy. The Government, with some foresight, said a little while ago that nuclear needed to be part of the mix, as well as cleaner coal, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change announced recently, and renewables. We must also not forget that we can do much to reduce our consumption of energy. That is why the home insulation programme, on which we are leading, is an important contribution to the progress that we all support.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for today's early briefing, and I welcome the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change back to the House after his paternity leave and send him best wishes for his new responsibilities.

We are grateful to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and ask him to pass on our thanks to the Met Office scientists, who have done a fantastic amount of work. They have produced what is probably one of the most significant pieces of scientific work to influence the debate for decades. We owe them great respect—they are hugely well regarded.

We are also grateful to the Government for being honest about the conclusion, which the science backs, that we will experience a 2° rise in temperature. According to assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that might mean that between two and three species are at further risk of extinction. We must face up to the biodiversity implications.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the statement predicts the fastest and most dramatic change in our environment that has ever been witnessed in such a short time? Today's projections probably mark a watershed in how we consider the future. We now have the evidence at home as well as abroad to show that we must change the way we do things in this country and plan our future differently.

I have some questions about the specifics. Does he accept that we must rethink food production in this country so that we are more self-sufficient in different parts of the country, avoiding the areas that have been most at risk from flooding and might be at more risk in future? Will we not have to rethink how we ensure access to clean water at all times, when more storms and unexpected global events are likely, with the consequent risk to the water supply? Will we not need to think carefully about our housing and planning? We will have more people to accommodate and many more houses to build, but we need to be much more careful about where we build them, given what we know about the risks in Gloucestershire, parts of Yorkshire, places on the east coast and, indeed, along the Thames estuary.

I have a different view about energy policy from that of Dr. Howells. Does the Secretary of State accept that we need to boost, not reduce, the opportunity for renewables as a result of the report because climate change means that we need to reduce emissions and move to other more dependable supplies? In London and the south-east, does the report imply that the Thames barrier may not be enough and that we need to start planning much earlier for further protection?

Does the Secretary of State accept that we need the same accuracy of prediction continentally and globally as we now have nationally and that we should work at Copenhagen and elsewhere on that basis?

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he has told us today, based on the science, means that the Government may have to rethink some of their policies for the best of reasons—for example, the third runway at Heathrow, the plan for coal-fired power stations and the general balance of the energy mix? None of us can afford to avoid the implications of today's announcement, and we must all realise that Britain and the world need to act pretty quickly or we will risk not only future generations but this generation's ability to maintain a planet on which we can continue the sort of life that not only we but people abroad need and expect.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the Met Office scientists, who have worked so hard to give us the benefit of the projections. He is right to talk about the fundamental changes that we could face. We cannot absolutely predict the future, but we can try to plan for it. That is the message that we must take from the report.

The changes outlined in the report will unquestionably affect the way we produce our food. I spoke earlier about trying to garner the water that we have got. Bluetongue is a disease that travelled up Africa, swept through Europe and arrived in the UK. That is an example of a change in climate affecting our farming industry. We found a way of dealing with that—we funded a vaccination programme, which farmers strongly supported.

Of course, the changes will affect the provision of water. That is why the water companies have to think 25 years ahead in their plans about how many houses they might serve, what the population will be and so on. It is also why we changed planning policy statement 25—the guidance on housing and planning—to provide that the Environment Agency, which has most expertise in the risks of flooding, must be consulted. It is encouraging to see that many planning applications against which the Environment Agency advised have not been approved. That shows that the change that we have made to the system is working.

I agree that we need to boost renewables. The current assessment of the Thames barrier is that it will see us to 2070. The important point about the projections is that, because they give us the probabilities, all a sun hat manufacturer needs to know is that the weather will be warmer, while those responsible for protecting London from flooding want to know what the 10 per cent. probability at the upper range is so that they can plan accordingly. The Thames barrier is a result of adaptation after the 1953 storm surge, which killed 300 people.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need such projections and information to be available globally. Anyone who examines what the scientists have to say to us cannot fail to understand the importance of responding, reducing emissions and adapting.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the excellent scientific work that lies behind it. I note that he referred to the potential for some economic opportunities for tourism and agriculture arising from climate change. I have also heard it argued that there are potential benefits in the reduced incidence of winter illness as a result of climate change. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to ensure that we and the public are not seduced by such small and doubtful potential benefits, and to emphasise that they are totally dwarfed by potentially devastating effects on vulnerable communities throughout the world and substantial infrastructure costs for us in Britain?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must tell the truth about the range of consequences that may flow. It would therefore be wrong not to refer to the opportunities that might emerge. We should want to take advantage of adaptation technologies and more efficient use of water so that we have the kit to fit to our houses to use water much more efficiently in future. However, my hon. Friend is right that the overwhelming message of the projections is that we do not want to end up in the sort of future predicted for 2070, 2080 and 2090. Whether we will is in our hands and those of other nations as we determine the emission reductions to which we are prepared to commit in Copenhagen in December.

The projections, especially those at the high end of the time scale, suggest that, for example, temperatures on the London underground might reach 47 °, although I think we might have got there already when travelling on the Northern line at 8 am. That raises important questions about the usability of major parts of transport infrastructure if the projections become reality. The Secretary of State has talked about the need for adaptation in a wide range of activity. What steps will the Government take to set up some form of adaptation fund to provide the long-term investment? The short-term political cycle of a Parliament that lasts four or five years, particularly when we face the economic pressures of the current situation, means that it is all too easy to postpone the necessary investment until another Parliament. Eventually, we could run out of time and not be able to afford the investments if the temperature projections reach the upper limits.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. The fact is that whoever is in government will have to deal with that issue, because that is the future that we are heading for. However, to be honest, I am not persuaded that a separate adaptation fund is the right approach, for this simple reason. If someone were designing a new school, would they say, "Right, I'll build it this way, like we've always done, but if a fund comes along, I shall change it, because you've given some extra finance"? Some of the changes are not very profound. Take highways, for instance. Let us say that someone building a new motorway wants to have drains of a certain capacity, but then decides to have slightly larger drains. That will not necessarily add hugely to the cost, but it does mean that as those concerned—whether they be businesses, councils or anybody else—think about how they are going to build, design and operate something, they will take those considerations into account. The message is that adaptation is not separate, new and special; rather, we have to build it into what we do every day.

I really do welcome today's statement, given that its timing quite deliberately coincides with my presentation afterwards of a Bill to introduce climate change health warnings in all car adverts. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend about the central role that water companies will have to play in our future. Is he happy with the regulatory regime, which obviously places the supply of good, clean, potable water at its core, but which may also militate somewhat against water companies branching out into renewable energy? I am thinking of a recent analysis by National Grid which showed that we could produce some 50 per cent. of our gas from biogas by 2020. However, the regime under Ofwat is perhaps not quite good enough to help water companies to achieve that target.

Water companies already produce quite a bit of energy from anaerobic digestion, in order to power their works. With the publication of the draft Flood and Water Management Bill and the document that went with it, we are consulting people on what more we should do on water efficiency, which the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently scrutinising, under Mr. Jack. Should what we do mirror what we have been doing on energy efficiency? I would be very interested to hear what people have to say about that. However, my hon. Friend is right: if the current regulatory structure does not fit what we now know we need to do, we will need to revise what we are doing in the light of the new evidence. That seems a pretty sensible thing to do when we have new evidence, and the new projections are certainly that.

Spine-chilling projections are one thing, but may I ask the Secretary of State about his performance in meeting existing targets for emission reductions? Am I right in thinking that the Government have a legally binding commitment to source 15 per cent. of all energy consumed—not just electricity—from renewable sources by 2020, even though that is widely regarded as unattainable? Could he tell the House what legal sanctions and penalties will apply to Ministers, Departments and civil servants who sign up to targets that are legally binding in international law, but then fail to meet them? If the answer is none, does that not contrast with how the Government treat businesses, which have to sign up to and meet, by force of legal sanction, fines and even imprisonment, targets set by the Government?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about who, in the end, holds Governments to account for the commitments that they enter into, and this is the Chamber in which we do that.

And in the courts.

It is for the courts to determine what that means in practice if people seek to bring a legal case. Indeed, there was a judicial review recently in relation to the fuel poverty targets that we set. The issues were played out in the courts and a judgment was delivered.

The target for renewable energy is challenging—there is no running away from that—but we are putting in place the policies that we need to get there. We have seen significant change in recent years, through the renewables obligation and the further measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is setting out and will be getting on with.

My right hon. Friend has rightly referred to the need for international agreement among Governments. However, does he agree that there is also a need for, in effect, an international movement of civil society, involving citizens and peoples, just as we saw with Make Poverty History and similar campaigns, to try to build up the pressure, particularly on the more recalcitrant Governments, to get the agreements that are so urgently needed?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The truth is that pressure from below helps Governments to move. We need politics that is a combination of leadership and those pressures. Indeed, the Climate Change Act was the result of two forces at work. One was the Big Ask campaign, which was a movement from below that said, "We should have a climate change Act in the UK," and the other was political leadership from the Government, who said, "Yeah, that's what we're going to do." The Bill was drafted and the Act is now on the statute book. That shows what we can do. Frankly, if we had asked someone 10 years ago what they thought the chances were that we would get a climate change Act, they would have said, "Well, I don't think it'll happen in Britain." However, it did happen, for precisely the reason my hon. Friend described.

Agriculture has a large part to play, through improved land management, increasing carbon sequestration and mitigating flooding by improving the permeability of the land, yet the Government have reduced research into agriculture over the years. Tomorrow I will visit Aberystwyth, where a lot of good work is being done along those lines. What plans do the Government have to increase the amount of money that they commit to agricultural research?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the funding that goes in from DEFRA or the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—in the end, it does not matter where the funding comes from; it is all public money going into research—he will see that the amount has increased. I draw his attention to the LINK programme in particular, which funds a range of practical projects that are near market and tries to turn our research understanding into practical applications that farmers can use. As we learn about what works, it is important that we have a way of translating it into action on farms. In truth, the way research projects have been conducted in the past has perhaps not paid enough attention to that onward transmission of the knowledge, because in the end, the purpose of the research, if we find something better than what we are doing at the moment, is to get people to use it.

I, too, strongly welcome the publication of these stark but important projections today and my right hon. Friend's statement in support of them. Does he accept that they will mean the almost complete decarbonisation of our energy economy at an early stage and that success at Copenhagen, which I fervently hope for, will increase our targets in that respect, as a result of our arrangements for climate budgets? Will he commit his Department to move further on the circular metabolism of resources in our economy, and in particular on the use of waste as a recovered resource and a vehicle for decarbonising energy, through heat gain from biogas?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to decarbonise and to change the way we think about waste. Let us take a practical example: aluminium cans. Why would we want to chuck them away into landfill? We know that if we recycle them, we can get £550 a tonne for them. It takes about 90 per cent. less energy to produce another can, as opposed to making one out of virgin material. That is a practical example of why it makes sense to think about waste in a different way. If we are talking about the right policies, the landfill levy has been very effective in moving us from 8 per cent. of domestic household waste recycled 12 or so years ago to just over 36 per cent., which is what we have now reached, although we need to go a lot further.

Kettering is located in one of the driest regions of England—the Anglian Water region—yet, under Government plans, it faces an increase of about a third in the number of houses by 2021. Given the variations in rainfall that the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement, is it not time to reconsider proposals for a national water grid, perhaps using Britain's canal network, as well as, unfortunately, a rapid increase in Britain's reservoir capacity?

Anglian Water is indeed serving an area of the country where there is particular difficulty. The long-term plans that it and other water companies will have to bring forward will be the means by which they consider all the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. The difficulty with a grid is what might have to be built in addition, as well as the energy involved in pumping huge amounts of water around the country. This goes back to what my hon. Friend Colin Challen said earlier. The projections give us better information that will enable those making planning decisions to take into account all the consequences, including ensuring that there is enough water. It is clear that we will have to use water much more efficiently in future. Just under a third of homes now have a water meter, and we all know that, in the water-stressed areas of the country, there will have to be near-universal application before 2030.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be aware of the intergovernmental panel on climate change's last, rather out-of-date forecast that remaining at just 2° would involve a figure of 450 parts per million. The latest projections would require a reduction from business as usual of 17 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions globally by 2020. It would be possible to achieve only a 5 gigatonne reduction within the developed nations, which means that a reduction of 12 gigatonnes would have to be achieved by developing nations, with all the perceived injustice that that would entail. Of those 12 gigatonnes, it would be possible to achieve five through plans involving forestry. What funds will be required to produce the offsets from the developed to the developing nations to meet that target?

The straight answer to my hon. Friend's last question is "a lot". He is right to point out the dilemma. Negotiators will have to face the fact that even if the rich world could stop emitting CO2 tomorrow morning—for the sake of argument—the developing economies would still have to make a contribution; otherwise, we would still face dangerous climate change. Financing for adaptation, mitigation and, crucially, technology will be a really important part of getting a deal. The announcement on coal by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was significant not only because of what it said about the framework that will apply in the United Kingdom but because we will have to demonstrate carbon capture and storage operating on a commercial scale if we are to have any hope of achieving the reductions to which my hon. Friend refers. Those who develop the technology first will have the opportunity to sell it to others, and we will then have one of the means that we need to deal with this issue.

These are obviously challenging projections, and they reinforce the need for a robust deal at Copenhagen at international level and for stepping up domestic efforts, both direct and indirect. On the indirect front, will the Secretary of State confirm that it is becoming increasingly clear that imports of biofuel are contributing to the global problem of climate change, rather than helping to solve it? Is it not crazy that Government policies are helping to annihilate the rain forest in the name of the environment? Will the Government consider suspending the renewable transport fuel obligation until proper sustainability criteria have been put in place?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the end, we want sustainable biofuels, not unsustainable ones. That is why we asked Ed Gallagher to undertake his review last year. He recommended that we make some adjustment to the pace at which the renewable transport fuel obligation should grow, and we responded to that. The evidence is pretty clear in relation to the direct impacts of biofuels: some are better than the diesel and petrol that they are replacing, and some are worse. We do not want to do worse, do we? The real question, however, is the indirect effects. In fairness, Britain has been at the forefront in arguing internationally for precisely the sustainability standards that the hon. Gentleman calls for, because that is what we will need if we are to avoid the deforestation he has drawn to the House's attention.

The Secretary of State is placing very heavy emphasis on these projections, and therefore on the complex models on which they are based. According to the Hadley Centre, there has been no global warming in the first nine years of this century so far. Did any of the models on which he is relying successfully predict that pause?

This century is nine years old. Courtesy of the ice cores in the Arctic and the Antarctic, we can go back 400,000 years and look at what has happened in the cycle of warming. It has gone up and down, but what has changed in the past 100 years is the rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact that nine of the hottest years on record here in the UK occurred in the past 15 years shows that this change is happening. There may be some who want to deny this—[Hon. Members: "There are!"] But they are in a diminishing minority. I am not a scientist and neither is the hon. Gentleman, as far as I am aware, but, given the overwhelming advice that we are getting from the scientific community about not only the uncertainty but the direction in which we are travelling, it would be a very imprudent Government who did not take serious notice and respond to it.

Agriculture depends on a finely tuned climate balance, and the projected changes in the climate will have severe implications for agriculture in this country and throughout the world. What is the Government's strategy to ensure that farmers here can cope with climate change and that we have the flexibility to increase production in this country if climate change should cause natural disasters resulting in a drop in food production elsewhere in the world?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the interdependence of world food supply. Some have argued for self-sufficiency, but we cannot be self-sufficient because some of the foodstuffs that we eat cannot be grown here. Furthermore, if a country were self-sufficient and something happened to affect its agriculture, what would it do? We need a combination of domestic and other production, although we are more self-sufficient now than we were in the 1930s and the 1950s. We also need to try to get production up, and to work with farmers to help them to adapt to the changing climate. We have been doing that with the industry; that is what part of the research programme is seeking to address. We have been giving guidance and encouraging people to think about the changes that they can make. I visited an apple farmer on open farm Sunday a week and a bit ago. In the corner of his field, there was a new water storage tank that he had built, because water supply is really important for growing the Cox's apples that he is so proud of.

The Secretary of State rightly pointed out in his statement that we have now established in law very challenging targets for the reduction of emissions. When are we going to get anything like a plan for how those targets are going to be delivered?

The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long. We are taking things in stages, and the first thing was to get the Climate Change Committee, which was established under the Climate Change Act 2008, to give us advice on what it thought the carbon budget should be. The second was for the Government to adopt those budgets, which happened alongside the money Budget, with which everyone is familiar. The third part will involve the publication of a plan to demonstrate how we intend to achieve the reductions set out in those budgets.

I represent an area of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where there will be growing anxiety about the impact of the projected changes on the rise in sea levels. What impact will the Secretary of State's announcement have on the timetable for the publication of the Environment Agency's coastline management plans? How will it affect our assessments of coastal defence and future developments affecting the coastline?

Tomorrow will see the publication of the long-term investment strategy for flood defence as part of a sequence of steps that we are taking. On Monday, we made an announcement about the help that we are giving coastal communities to prepare them for adapting to the impact of coastal erosion. It is right that the next stage should be to ask what we shall need to spend to continue to protect people from flooding, given the information in today's projections.

I am extremely grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State will know that, as a physicist, I do not dispute the physics of global warming—that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations will produce, of itself, about a 1° rise in global temperatures. The cause for concern is the assumption in the models, to which my hon. Friend Mr. Tyrie referred, that positive feedbacks will amplify the effects. Given that the models did not forecast the decade of stability, or slight decline, in world temperatures, have they been modified in the light of those facts? Are not the projections lower than they would have been if they had been made a decade ago when we had not seen the stability and the huge increase of CO2 that none the less occurred, or is the Secretary of State's attitude the same as that of Hegel who, when told that his theories were refuted by the facts, replied:

"So much the worse for the facts"?

I would not make any such claim. I am not a physicist, but I will ask scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's point. I know from talking to them that they have done their work with care and thoroughness. They have brought together a range of models and they are very open and honest about the uncertainties—it is important to be aware of them—as the results are presented. Equally, however, there is not much doubt about the direction in which we are heading, which is the direction for which we have to plan.