CLIMATE change “seems to be slipping down political agendas”, the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Revd Graham Usher, told peers on Wednesday, in a House of Lords debate about energy policy.
Bishop Usher spoke in the debate after attending a mass lobby in Parliament Square urging the Government to take more urgent action on environmental issues (News, 9 July, Comment, 4 July).
“I am not usually someone who joins such events but, for me, it is vital for us to hear the Climate Coalition and the great many people who are raising this issue of climate change and nature loss, because it seems to be slipping down political agendas,” he told peers.
In the debate on the Government’s proposals for energy infrastructure upgrades, he welcomed an approach which he said “broadly aligns” with goals to reach net zero by 2050, and to rely on cleaner sources of power by 2030.
He highlighted, however, the high costs faced by churches that were trying to update their electricity network infrastructure and make it more environmentally friendly.
The PCC of St Margaret’s, Lowestoft, in his diocese, was quoted £100,000 to upgrade its system and move away from fossil fuel heating, he said.
He called for cheaper and easier ways for alternative electricity sources, such as solar panels, to be connected to the National Grid, suggesting that this would help to incentivise churches to install such technology, as they could also provide energy to their local communities.
In response, the Government whip, Lord Wilson, said that independent connection providers “may prove to be cheaper and faster”.
The cost of using power provided from renewable energy sources was also an issue, Bishop Usher said; the estimates for renewable energy for Church House, Westminster, had risen from £2 million to £3.5 million since February.
Grid capacity was also a concern, Bishop Usher said, especially in the east of England, where much offshore energy was produced. “We have a situation in which grid infrastructure is still being developed reactively, based on project applications, rather than a longer-term systems need,” he said. He called for better long-term planning that anticipated, rather than reacted to, demand.
The protection of natural habitats needed to be considered when developing energy infrastructure, he said, and, to that end, the acknowledgement in the policy that there “needs to be a greater sense of care around reconnecting important habitats, green corridors, and biodiversity stepping stones, not only for nature but for people in reinstating public footpaths, cycle ways, and ways to get people to connect with and be outdoors in nature.”
“But how will it happen in reality?” he asked. “In putting in this linear cabling, ancient hedgerows often have to be removed. How can it be done in such a way to restore some of the habitats that are being removed?”
Underground cabling, though, helped to ensure “fewer harmful long-term impacts” than pylons, he said, with improvements for “residents, for the environment, for settings of heritage assets, for tranquillity, and for the countryside”.
Energy policy ultimately needs to be developed “in such a way that people, place, nature, and landscape can be protected and thrive”, Bishop Usher concluded.
