Mr.
Woolas: Listen to the argument, please. In such
circumstances, future Secretaries of State would be obliged by law to
take actions and decisions to reach a temperature goal that they could
not possibly reach. That would undermine the ability of the Government
of the day to implement the requirement in clause 2 for a 60 per cent.
reduction in emissions. Global temperatures are already at 0.7°
C above pre-industrial revolution levels. If, in 10, 15 or 20 years,
they are 2° C above, and the law requires the Secretary of State
to act in a certain way that is thus not possible, what would the hon.
Member for Cheltenham advise?
Martin
Horwood: The Minister is making the argument of somebody
sitting in a sinking boat who stops baling out because the other people
baling out do not seem to have made as much effort as he expected.
Clearly, the whole purpose of the Bill is to contribute to a global
effort and that is explicitly what the subsequent
measures—including the 60 per cent. target on carbon
emissions—are designed to achieve. That was what the Minister
said, based on the Royal Commission on Environmental Protection and,
through that, on the
IPCC.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of
the Bill. One of its purposes is to commit us to that contribution, but
its other purpose is to make it law that the Government of the day have
to act towards a
target. It
being One o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee
without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
