| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says that it is extraordinary that aviation fuel is not taxed, but it would be extremely difficult to ensure that it was taxed by all countries. If only one country imposed it, airlines would probably refuel elsewhere.
Mr. Yeo: I take that point. I was about to say that I recognise the difficulties. Clearly, to be effective, a tax would have to be agreed internationally. I recognise the role that my right hon. Friend played in the previous
Government in trying to promote the debate in the European Union and elsewhere. I welcome those efforts, but little practical achievement has yet been recorded. It is a matter of great urgency, for the reasons that I stated: the growth in air traffic and the relative inefficiency of air travel in terms of carbon dioxide emission. The matter requires greater attention.
No one could seriously argue that requiring the air travel industry to bear a share of the environmental costs that it imposes on the world would not be a desirable objective. It is also clear that the imposition of a tax on aviation fuel would be a powerful incentive for airlines to improve the energy efficiency of their aircraft. If air fares were raised as a result of such a tax, that might provide an incentive for people to consider alternatives such as high-speed trains, particularly for short-haul journeys.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government accept the merits of the case for taxing aviation fuel, that they will strive for international agreement on that and that they will seize the opportunity to promote that debate at the special session in two weeks.
I acknowledge that I have touched on only a fraction of the issues that will be considered at the Earth summit, but, because of the level of interest in this debate, I did not wish to take up an unreasonable amount of time. I want to ensure that these issues are before the House, and I shall certainly want to return to them during this parliamentary Session. I should like to have touched on many other matters--forestry, water issues, biodiversity and on the crucial debate about how we can enable poorer countries to achieve their legitimate aspirations for greater prosperity without undermining the progress of the world as a whole towards sustainability.
I hope that some of those matters will be dealt with by other hon. Members. I want to leave time for that, but I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific points that I have made. If she cannot do so in her speech today--I realise that she will not have had notice of all of them and that there may not be time for her to deal with all of them--I hope that she will respond by letter, preferably before the start of the special session in two weeks.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
I shall endeavour to follow the unselfish example of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and speak succinctly. Wednesday morning speeches, when colleagues want to speak, should be short.
My one question to my hon. Friend the Minister is about mahogany and her Department's policy towards it. On 3 June in The Independent, Nicholas Schoon made a comparison between 1972 and 1997. He wrote that in 1972 up to a third of the world's girdle of tropical rain
forests had been destroyed, and about 0.5 per cent. of the remainder were being lost each year--some 100,000 sq km, or an area the size of Iceland.
Schoon stated that the deforestation rate for the tropics from 1990 to 1995 was estimated to be 130,000 sq km a year, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. It is thought that one or two plant and animal species become extinct every hour, as a result. The Brazilian national space academy estimated last year that the rate of deforestation in the Amazon had risen from 11,000 sq km to 15,000 sq km since the 1992 Earth summit.
I had the good fortune to go to the rally of the Amer-Indians at Altamira in Brazil in 1989 and subsequently to have had as my guests in the House the chiefs of the Kayopo tribe, Pyakan and Ru'uni. The all-party Latin-American group, of which I am a vice-chairman, has had relations with President Cardoso and the other South American leaders who attended the successful conference four months ago.
Against that background, may I ask the Minister and the Department about the Government's policy towards the importation of mahogany. It is no good imposing a blanket ban on imports. That would simply create resentment among countries that need to export. It is important to try to ascertain how the mahogany is harvested--whether that is done sensitively, without ruining the entire ecosystem, or by greedy developers who could not care less about the rain forest and simply sail in with their heavy machinery.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion):
I am delighted that the debate has been secured and by the number of hon. Members who want to participate, which shows the increasing interest in the topic of sustainable development. Clearly, there is an increasing understanding of sustainable development.
I shall concentrate on a number of specific issues--one might call them cross-sectoral issues--in relation to Earth summit 2. First, the European Union position paper refers to the importance of moving to the implementation phase of sustainable development. That implies that nothing much has happened since Rio, except in the development of the process. That is useful enough, and it is important that the show should be kept on the road. There have been real achievements in the process, but it is time to start talking about serious implementation.
The danger at the New York summit is that, far from moving towards implementation, the Rio process could fall apart. That danger springs from the fact that the basic agreement reached at Rio has not been honoured. That agreement was based on the principle that the north and the south have common but differentiated responsibilities regarding sustainable development. Therefore, the north undertook to transfer resources to the south, in terms of both funding and technology, to allow sustainable
development to occur in that area. The aim was development and improving the quality of life without devastating the environment in the process.
In reality, the north has cut its development aid to the south. The gap between what is needed and what is provided is grotesque. That issue cannot be bucked in New York. I am pleased by the new Government's approach to sustainable development generally. However, I was disappointed when the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions last week that public expenditure limits would constrain the United Kingdom's ability to increase aid in the foreseeable future. That leads us to ask: what will the United Kingdom say in New York about that crucial issue which will decide the success of the summit?
It is important to support the idea of new financial mechanisms--one of which, the air fuel tax, was mentioned this morning. That seems a feasible option which would generate significant resources. If we cannot get our acts together on bilateral aid, there must be independent mechanisms to provide resources for sustainable development as of right. I believe that the United Kingdom Government should support the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on finance, which would report within a defined time scale and make a commitment to implement the panel's recommendations.
I also support the idea that the European Union should start the process by imposing its own air fuel tax. The system could be devised and the tax introduced immediately. That is one way of keeping the countries of the south on board and allowing the process to continue.
A second consideration is trade. It seems clear that the World Trade Organisation is not taking sustainability seriously. Its conventional wisdom is that free trade is inevitably good for sustainability, first, through the operation of the law of comparative advantage, which means that goods are produced in those areas best suited to that purpose--ignoring all sorts of other considerations that complicate the matter further--and, secondly, through the generation of increased wealth that can be used for environmental protection. That is old-fashioned, out-of-date conventional economic thinking, and it must be challenged seriously in New York.
In addition, the World Trade Organisation's rules often work against environmental protection and, on some occasions, have prevented countries from implementing important environmental protection measures. Therefore, I support the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on trade and environment. Non-governmental organisations must have greater access to, and input in, the WTO decision-making process. Although it is dangerous to call for the establishment of whole mechanisms, the current mechanisms are not working in these two areas and we must devise new ones.
Thirdly, the north must move towards sustainable consumption as a quid pro quo for calling on the south to forgo unsustainable development and consumption. Energy is just one aspect of that issue. Kyoto has been mentioned; it must be a success, and Earth summit 2 should pave the way for that.
I support the imposition of legally binding commitments on industrial countries to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in the level of 1990 emissions by 2005. The United Kingdom Government are talking about achieving that target by 2010. That is a challenging target,
and 2005 is even more so. However, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise solutions at a time of crisis. Sustainable development is a challenge, and saving the planet is the most important challenge of all.
Tradeable quotas have been mentioned. There is nothing wrong with that idea in itself, but it raises the question of how quotas would be allocated in the first place. There is a great deal to be said for the contraction and convergence scenario suggested by the Aubrey Meyer Global Commons Institute. It aims to establish global equity and would provide a mechanism for transferring resources to developing countries. That allocation would occur on a per capita basis, and the extent of the contraction would be based not on what is supposedly realistic, but on what is necessary to prevent damaging climate change. Climate change is a deadly serious business. We should not suggest for one moment that it might not be that bad, that it has happened before and that it might have some advantages. When human activity destabilises the planet's climate, it is time to sit up and take notice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |