Tough economic times are putting the environment to the back of the political and public agenda, says Colin Challen*.

For those who work in the water industry, not least in the UK, climate change is coming to dominate many of our future priorities. What happens to water is going to be the first and most obvious sign of how things are changing - nearly all the stories one hears about climate change are in some way to do with water - or the lack of it. Be it glaciers and ice sheets melting, sea level rise, flooding, more or less monsoon, more or less rainfall, or drought, all are related. Crop failure, food shortages, starvation, water wars - for some the phrase 'peak oil' is going to be replaced by 'peak water.'

Even without the impact of climate change, merely having a growing and industrialising population is putting severe strain on global water resources. Most water is required for irrigation, and in some countries, especially India and China, groundwater levels are plummeting as we witness the impacts of ever deeper water mining. The economic growth of these countries is threatened by water shortages.

In Australia, we have already witnessed what was possibly the first climate change election, when after many long years of drought the Australians realised finally that burying your head in the sand is not the best option, and they chose a prime minister who called for global action on climate change. Naturally, that will not in itself end the drought. Perhaps the only way they could do that is by appointing somebody like Denis Howell as 'Minister for Drought', as we did in 1976, or invoking the gods, which is much the same thing.

We will feel the impacts of global water shortages by proxy. The failure of crops, coming at the same time as more crops are being grown for biofuels, will send food prices much higher - never mind the population explosion. China is now importing grain, whereas it always used to export grain. As more people get wealthier, their diet changes too and meat - the most inefficient, wasteful way of obtaining protein  - becomes ever more in demand. I've forgotten exactly how much vegetable protein it takes to create one pound of animal protein, but it is significant - and it takes a lot of water, possibly in the ratio of 40 tonnes of water for one tonne of meat.

So, perhaps it is time to question whether we in the UK will remain immune to global water trends. As we know, we are likely to survive the worst impacts of climate change quite well, always provided the Gulf Stream doesn't pack in, which seems unlikely -  although it may reduce in volume according to research. Our climate will probably remain pretty temperate, albeit a bit warmer. As we have witnessed in recent years, we can expect less snow and more rain. All-in-all, it shouldn't be too difficult to adjust. Indeed, James Lovelock believes that the UK could become a 'lifeboat' for those fleeing the impacts of climate change elsewhere. This may not be a matter of choice but of necessity. The extent of an influx of climate change refugees is as yet a matter for pure speculation. We have no idea. But even if we look at Government projections for what we might describe as normal population growth in the UK, it is already quite clear that there is going to be severe extra strain placed on our water services.

Does Defra's new water strategy, published in February truly reflect the scale of the challenge? I wouldn't want to hazard a guess - this is a question the Government and industry will have to answer. What is obvious to me is that the age of plentiful supply, underpinning rising demand, based on an incremental increase in investment, is a philosophy which may well go the same way as our thinking about energy. We do not yet seem prepared to face up to the fact that the staple, core costs of our standard of living, taken for granted for so long as a diminishing element of household expenditure, is  undergoing a reverse of this downward trend. Consumers will necessarily be faced with higher bills if they wish to secure safe and sustainable water supplies in the future.

Of course, this is not going to be acceptable politically. Now, as we enter a period of economic uncertainty, opinion polls show a rapidly-declining interest in the environment. The irony is that the environment is a luxury we are prepared to pay for when we don't think we'll really notice that we're actually spending anything on it.

I have often argued that although the scientific debate about climate change is settled - the sceptics have lost the argument - there is still a political debate to be had. In this debate, the sceptics will have a much better chance of connecting with the public. We have of late seen opinion polls recording less enthusiasm for the environmental agenda, as more traditional concerns rise to the top again, the economy of course now dominant. We will see increasing calls for relaxation of policies which hurt our pockets. The Daily Telegraph has rejoiced in the fact that the Tories have pledged to support its campaign to stop increases in vehicle excise and fuel duties. These rises are, according to George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, 'a time bomb waiting to detonate' - unlike climate change, which I suppose has now been defused. So much for voting blue and going green.  As we approach the general election, we will leave the green agenda on the shelf. But it's not just the Tories. The Government did, after all, delay the 2p rise in fuel duty and may do so again. After the local elections, it also seemed as if the household rubbish charging plan was in disarray. We rely more on exhortation - the Act on CO2 campaign - than we do on anything which puts prices up. Will we need an Australian style calamity before we change direction?

I do not believe that we are willing to spend even the one percent of GDP that Nick Stern identified as the likely cost of mitigating climate change. In the year his report was published, 2006, one percent of GDP amounted to £13.2 billion. Every million of that sum we didn't spend then is merely carried over into the following year's account. The longer we leave it, the bigger the challenge gets. But whilst politicians talk about this one percent we should bear in mind that that was the expenditure Stern thought was required to mitigate climate change within what is probably a range of temperature increase up to four degrees Celsius. Government policy is supposedly to limit an increase to two degrees - which would require, according to the Stern report, expenditure closer to three percent of GDP. It is clearly the case that we cannot expect to win this battle if we allow ourselves such intellectual laxity, that we enjoy the luxury of both commissioning and talking up such reports and then ignoring them in practice.

The impact on the water industry is obvious. In the wake of rising energy costs - which impact on the water industry as much as they do on ordinary consumers - is it conceivable that any government would countenance sharp rises in water charges to pay for environmental investments? It would be a wager I wouldn't bet my money on.  Through positive carbon management businesses will become more efficient and more cost conscious. With the roll-out of universal metering, there are perhaps some rays of hope that such efficiency, coupled with behavioural change, will combine to lower the carbon footprint of our current profligate use of water. I bloody well hope so!

*Colin Challen is MP for Morley and Rothwell.

Note:  This article has been adapted from Colin Challen's speech at the CIWEM Annual Dinner on 8 May.