Climate Change Bill [HL]

There is a difference between the 2020 target and the 2050 target: the 2020 target is a staging post along the way. It might be thought that the Committee on Climate Change needs some guidance on the absolute minimum acceptable target and the maximum that it ought to think about. Why is that? At the maximum point, there is inevitably a trade-off between what it might be possible to force through and what the consequences would be. One of the many issues the committee has to consider is the economic consequences of trying to achieve different things. If we say, ““We will not give the committee any guidance. It should get the highest level of carbon reduction it can””, and the committee does that, the Government may then have to say, ““We cannot face the consequences of that target””. Other amendments in the Marshalled List would ensure that the committee will effectively determine what happens and the Government will simply have to put before Parliament what it recommends. There is an argument for providing guidance to the committee at staging posts along the way, but for my part the important question to ask the Minister in Committee is why the minimum target the Government regard as acceptable and the maximum they have in mind are reasonable guidelines to provide for the committee. If no guidelines are given, it is very difficult, but if a specific figure is given, it jolly well has to be justified. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I cannot see the argument that because 40 per cent is half of 80 per cent, that is a good reason for why it should be the figure the Committee on Climate Change has to draw up plans for in 2020. It is not a sound argument. The idea of a range for an intermediate position is not at all ridiculous; in fact it is entirely sensible. I am sorry to refer again to the McKinsey analysis, but I do so because what industry says is likely to have consequences. According to the report, far from the early years yielding low-hanging fruits, up to 2020 the price of carbon could reach 60 to 90 euros per tonne carbon equivalent. However, by 2030 it could fall to 40 euros. In other words, depending on how fast we try to go, the period to 2020 could be the tougher rather than the easier one, depending on what we are trying to achieve. So if you are trying to achieve 26 per cent as one target and 40 per cent as another, that is backed up sector by sector by the kind of policies required. I am sure the Liberal Democrats will be delighted to know that if they are going to achieve a 40 per cent target, they will have to build at least one nuclear power station a year for several years. When the figures are converted into actual policies, which somebody has to do, being firm on a figure of 40 per cent and telling the Committee on Climate Change to get on with it—and that any recommendation has to go before Parliament because the Government cannot say yea or nay—does not make sense. If the Liberal Democrats are anywhere close to power—they might be in a coalition government, but heaven forbid if they were—they would have something to say about it. They would soon find out whether judicial reviews and binding commitments hold water. My general point is this. A range is not a silly idea for an intermediate position. It provides flexibility and manoeuvrability depending on the circumstances, and it is achievable. It is not the same thing as specifying what is to be achieved 40 or 45 years hence.