Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 8: 8: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert— ““(3) The 2050 target must be met by emissions reductions achieved within the UK.”” The noble Baroness said: The amendment returns us slightly to the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in his Amendment No. 6, but I am glad that we can have this debate again because we have just had a debate on the target. The point of my amendment is to flush out exactly how wobbly the target is, whether it is 60 or 80 per cent, given the amount of international credits that can be used when it comes to the UK’s own emissions reduction. The draft regulatory impact assessment suggested that the UK’s emissions might be reduced by just 40 per cent by 2050, given the use of all the international credits. Part of the point of the Bill, besides setting the targets, is to create two things. The first is certainty for business. How much can it invest? Are we driving Britain towards a low-carbon economy, and if so how fast? The second is the seriousness with which we will take behaviour change. Those two things are the key to the success of the Bill. If we aimed to achieve most of the target within the UK, that would be a clear signal to industry that emitting carbon would become increasingly expensive, because the Government will have to introduce extremely harsh policies to reduce emissions or they will miss the target. As the Bill is drafted, the unlimited potential for the use of carbon credits undermines both objectives of investment and behaviour change. I am looking, in the Minister’s reply, for how he will create the atmosphere of certainty while allowing so much flexibility within the international trading scheme. I would not want to overplay the down side, however. In allowing emissions to be offset by carbon credits, the carbon price will be substantially reduced. In some ways, that is not a bad thing. The theory of emissions trading emphasises that a reduction of 1 tonne of greenhouse gases is equal anywhere in the world; we all accept that. We have already heard today the argument that, instead of pursuing expensive reductions at home, it is cheaper—I think that the Minister said £3 billion cheaper—for the Government to invest in projects that will reduce emissions abroad. Of course, on that side of the argument he did not state that, by creating a really low-carbon economy here and leading the technology, you are likely to arrive at a far higher figure in terms of net income to the UK, because we will be leading an economy that the world will be hungry for. He should balance his arguments in that way. We have talked about the principles of supplementarity, and I am sure that we shall return to those issues as we go through the Bill. The principles of supplementarity and differentiated responsibilities are enshrined in the UK commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Those principles emphasise that developed countries are high emitters, historically, and that developing countries have a right to sustainable development. The developed world must take the lead by demonstrating that it can reduce emissions at home. There should be strong statements in the Bill. I have tabled amendments to make sure that the monitoring and assessing of how much of the target is met by foreign trading will be clear. As the Bill is drafted, it can be left opaque, which would be disgraceful. Unless we are clear on those issues, that will undermine two of the fundamental purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.