Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 34: 34: Clause 5, page 3, line 18, leave out ““26%, but not more than 32%,”” and insert ““40%”” The noble Lord said: At the beginning of our debate on the first day in Committee we talked about an 80 per cent, or 60 per cent—whatever that percentage should be—overall reduction by 2050. At Second Reading, I felt there was particular feeling from all sides of the House for this very strange mid-point target that the Government had inserted into the Bill which—I do not know whether it was meant to but it clearly does—put in not only a minimum target range but also a maximum. It suggested that if the UK economy by 2020 reduced carbon emissions by more than 32 per cent, then somehow the Secretary of State would be equally culpable if he had missed the lower target. That seemed an extremely perverse and almost masochistic form of legislation. Our amendment does two things. It takes away the ceiling for reductions, which does not seem to make any sense, and it replaces the single target with a figure of 40 per cent. Perhaps we will get back into the previous argument about whether it is up to Parliament to decide what the target should be. Our view—and the Government’s view, we have heard—is that there needs to be a figure in the Bill. That is the case for the final target and we believe that it should also be the case for the approximate mid point in 2020, and that the right figure for an 80 per cent overall reduction is a best estimate of 40 per cent. Where does this figure come from? It is half of 80 per cent—rather easier mathematics than we heard earlier. However, in terms of how quickly one can achieve the targets, there are clearly two forces working one against the other. There is the school of thought that there are easy areas to meet. The low-hanging fruit argument says that we should be able to save obvious carbon emissions quickly but that it will get more difficult as time goes on. On the other hand, we hope that technical innovation will be stimulated very strongly by the imperative of climate change. New technologies will come on stream some years ahead to allow the extra efficiencies to be met to a greater extent later. If we take the view that the two roughly cancel each other out, then the figure of 40 per cent is more or less correct and is suitable for the Bill at this stage. Over the past week at Bali, it was the EU’s specific view that the target for developed nations should be between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020. That was for greenhouse gases generally but, as we know, carbon dioxide is the most important of those. I presume that the British Government fully supported the EU stance on targets to be met by developed nations and I would certainly expect them to have done so. If as a nation we are saying that we should be at the forefront of those targets and leading not just globally but within Europe, then, within that context, 40 per cent again seems to be the right figure. However, most importantly, we should remove the upper target. I beg to move.