Previous Section Index Home Page


12 Jun 2007 : Column 738

As a Government, we are not saying that we have closed our mind on this; we are not saying that this is the last word. We are saying that a more stringent target will require further advice, evidence, discussion and agreement. There is not a consensus on any of the targets at the moment, other than the 60 per cent. target contained in the draft Bill.

Chris Huhne: The Minister’s quote from the fourth assessment report of the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change shows that if we do aim for the sort of cuts he is talking about, we will not hold global warming to within 2(o)C of pre-industrial levels. The science has moved on. Surely it is time for the Government to recognise that and to move with and be guided by the science, and not attempt to ignore it for reasons of political convenience.

Ian Pearson: The Government are certainly not ignoring the science; we have looked carefully at the fourth assessment report and I have tried to explain the Government’s view in the light of our assessment of its findings. I have tried to say that the Government have an open mind and recognise that there is a dynamic process involved, which is why there is flexibility in the draft Climate Change Bill to be able to amend the target by order in the future if that is required.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) suggested that climate change emissions might be beyond the control of the Government, and he also referred to justiciability. That is not the spirit of Kyoto or what is required for the future. We took on legally binding commitments at Kyoto and we hope that we will take on legally binding commitments in a post-2012 regime. It is not, as he suggests, a question of the UK going it alone. He will be aware of the spring European Council decision on a 20 per cent cut unilaterally across the European Union, and we want it to be more than that—30 per cent. by 2020. We hope to see international agreement on that.

We do have tools: the EU emissions trading scheme; proposals on zero-carbon homes; the energy efficiency commitment, which is being doubled and renamed; the climate change levy; climate change agreements; the work of the Carbon Trust; and the Energy Saving Trust. There is a range of Government programmes that the hon. Member for Cheltenham wants to ignore at every possible occasion, but which are helping the UK in our drive to become a low-carbon economy.

The hon. Gentleman does at least welcome the Climate Change Bill. His speech was long on criticism but wrong in most respects where it gave credit for action to tackle climate change. He needs to address the nuclear issue—and the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby might want to convince the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) of the benefits of nuclear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell discussed contraction and convergence. The Government are not hiding from that. We are looking for the best possible framework through which to address the global problem of climate change. As part of our international deliberations, we are considering contraction and convergence in detail, along with three or four other potential models, in terms of the emissions reductions that can be delivered and the economic costs. As I have
12 Jun 2007 : Column 739
said to him before, there is no international consensus about what is the right approach to adopt, but I understand the importance of contraction and convergence as a potential model.

Colin Challen: I had an Adjournment debate on this subject shortly after the last election, when a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister said exactly the same thing. I would like to know when the considerations on the framework will be concluded. What will be our position when we go to Bali? Will we put a formula on the table and say, “We understand that there is no consensus but we want to get a consensus around this formula, because this formula is the one that we have used to achieve our target in our legislation”? It would be reasonable to propose that.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In Bali, we want to reach an agreement on a comprehensive framework for negotiations. We have talked about the need for a clear stabilisation goal, the need to recognise the important role that carbon markets can play, the importance of technology and of addressing deforestation, the need to adapt to climate
12 Jun 2007 : Column 740
change, and the need for common but differentiated treatment to run through all the negotiations. As part of that common but differentiated treatment we need to look at the whole issue of equity, which is at the foundation of the contraction and convergence model. We cannot ignore the international context of a model. I have sympathy with the approach that my hon. Friend suggests, but we need to find the best way through to an agreement on a comprehensive framework that will work and that will avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change. The Government are committed to doing that.

I hope that the House will continue to welcome the Bill, which provides a new focus for the UK’s efforts to tackle climate change. It provides a coherent, long-term legal framework for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Many of the points made in the debate have also been raised in the consultation on the Bill, which closed today, and in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. We will reflect further on all the comments made tonight and those made by stakeholders as we bring forward the legislation for consideration by Parliament this autumn.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Nine o’clock.


    Index Home Page