Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a domestic trading scheme for carbon emissions; to set a national ceiling for carbon emissions; and for connected purposes.
The principle that underpins domestic tradable quotasDTQshas been largely accepted internationally and nationally. Everyone who has taken a keen interest in combating climate change will be aware of the principles of emissions trading.
Many know that the United Kingdom has been a leader in such matters, that we have already established a limited emissions trading scheme and that it is augmented by similar action at European level, as well as by our national allocation plan, which is due to be operational next year. Emissions trading schemes generally work partly on the principle of what is known as contraction and convergencewe set a target to reduce or contract our emissions each year, and eventually our emissions are no greater than anybody else's. The concept of convergence means that we have a right to use only our fair share of carbon-emitting resources.
The Bill would extend those principles to the domestic marketthat is, to members of the population at large. To date, the vast majority of schemes that any Government have introduced to address the terrible and overriding problem of global warming have relied on getting industry or organisations to adjust their ways. For individual citizens, there has been little more than encouragement, piecemeal energy efficiency grants or other forms of cajoling designed to inspire voluntary activity. However, that does not go far enough, fast enough.
There are too many opposite influences, which seem counter-intuitive to the ordinary consumer when it comes to doing something about global warming. The first of those influences is, frankly, cheap energy prices. The market has successfully driven down the price of energy in the past few years. At times, it has seemed as though that has been the energy regulator's only policy. Consequently, many people have come to believe that their energy is and always will be cheap. That means that any major investment, either in the grid, in combined heat and power or in renewables is perceived as some sort of imposition, which if pressed with any sense of urgency will lead to unacceptably high energy bills.
That is the worst form of short-termism, the implication being that, provided that the other costs of climate change do not hit us too hardas happened, for example, with higher insurance premiumswe can dither on as before without worrying too much about the day after tomorrow, to coin a phrase. There is also an all-pervasive influence on the way in which individuals react to questions such as those posed in recent years by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, namely, "Are you doing your bit for the environment? Are you turning off your light switches, TV and computer stand-bys? Are you recycling, composting and so on?"
7 Jul 2004 : Column 842
The trouble is that when somebody who does all those things discovers that most people are not doing their bitas indeed most people are notit is incredibly depressing. People end up feeling that their little bit will not make the slightest jot of difference to the environment. Getting peopleall 60 million of usto act collectively is never easy, and it is even less easy, I acknowledge, when we feel it will cost us more, especially if a privileged few are seen to benefit.
Increased fuel duties have had a disproportionate impact on the worse off, as better-off people will always be able to afford higher petrol costs or electricity bills. In what we do to protect the environment, we should always seek to avoid giving an apparent benefit to one group as opposed to another just because they can afford it. So I am not keen on carbon taxation, which would have precisely that effect. The environment is something that we all share and enjoy, and Government policy should ensure that today's generations have equal opportunities to do so fairly and with respect to future generations.
The Bill stems from an idea that has been worked on by the Tyndall centre for climate change research, and I would like to pay homage especially to the work of Dr. Kevin Anderson and Dr. Richard Starkey on this subject. They are part of a group of people who are exploring ideas and methods for tackling climate change and seeking solutions through changing the way we run things, rather than simply pursuing the technological routealthough the two are, of course, not mutually exclusive, and indeed in this case are highly complementary.
Domestic tradable quotas would extend the principle of emissions trading to individual citizens. All of us would be issued with our own equal share of the national carbon emissions cake. In the early years of the scheme, the allocation for most of us would be more than we required. For others it would be less. Between the two, a market in surplus carbon units would be established. The market would determine the price, and those who used less energy would obviously stand to make a gain. Carbon units would expire as the consumer used energy, so their opening allocation would reduce as they went along. Energy utilities would automatically deduct units from the individual's carbon allocation account each time they calculated a consumer's invoice.
Consumers would also have a transaction carda smart cardthat they could, for example, present at petrol stations, just as they now present their reward points cards to get air miles, free cutlery, the collected works of Elvis, or whatever. The technology needed to support the carbon emissions market is no longer a barrier. Those already familiar with reward cards would have no difficulty with this scheme, and the reward in this case would be incalculable. The technology for issuing these smart transaction cards could be combined with that used for another card currently under consideration by the Government, which could make that card even more popular than I think it will be.
In these 10 minutes it would be impossible to address all the detailed issues that arise from the Bill, and I would not deny that more work is needed on it. But as the realisation continues to sink in that global warming is no longer just a threat but a dangerous reality, we will certainly have to extend our response to it beyond the merely voluntary. To do that, we must have a scheme
7 Jul 2004 : Column 843
that is equitable, fair and efficient. This is not rocket science; it is common sense. More people will do their bit for the environment if they know that it will make a difference, and understand that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.
I am not suggesting that we print those wordsfine though they areon the back of our smart cards, but when our Prime Minister takes the chair of the G8 summit next year, and indeed the presidency of the European Union, it would be the most serious challenge imaginable to his fellow leaders if he were able to say that the 60 million citizens of the UK were doing their bit for the environment, because that commitment alone would demonstrate that we had understood our uncompromising responsibility to face this challenge urgently and equally. In commending the Bill to the House, I urge hon. Members to take a look at the Tyndall centre's website, where they will find recent material explaining more fully how domestic tradable quotas might work.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colin Challen, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. David Chaytor, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Tony McWalter, Brian White, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Simon Thomas, Sue Doughty and Mr. Gordon Prentice.
Mr. Colin Challen accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a domestic trading scheme for carbon emissions; to set a national ceiling for carbon emissions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 136].
Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not the first time that when a ten-minute Bill has been introduced, the Minister from the relevant Department has not been on the Treasury Bench to hear what was said[Interruption.] The Minister was not present at the commencement of the speech by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), and did not arrive for three minutes, by which time a substantial part of the speech had been missed. Can we ensure that Ministers hear the full speech on a ten-minute Bill, so that they can take account of the content?
Mr. Speaker:
When I was in industry, the first three minutes were not counted: you were considered a good timekeeper, and the Minister is a good timekeeper.
7 Jul 2004 : Column 844
As amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, further considered.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |