We would lose a lot of credibility. My noble friend will be very isolated outside the House if he said that we should have no target and no figure. We have the scientific evidence for at least 60 per cent, although the evidence is seven years old and science has moved on since then. We have a procedure for changing the figure; that is, through the Climate Change Committee and the relevant legislative framework in the Bill. We would lose an awful lot if we took it out of the Bill, and we would send the wrong signals to other countries. It would be completely misunderstood if we did that and it would undermine the efforts being made in Bali as we speak. We want our targets to carry weight internationally. Obviously, we are likely to get that by using the best and most up-to-date science and the best cost-benefit analysis, so that we do not misunderstand the economics.
There is widespread agreement across society that the changes are necessary and desirable. If the committee comes back with 80 per cent, we have to explain that the consequence is not just changing a figure from 60 to 80—if that is the figure that it chooses. The economic and other consequences have to be sold to the wider society. There is no question that there would be substantial changes.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 December 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c180-1 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:38:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429284
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429284
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429284