Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 48: 48: Clause 10, page 5, line 36, at end insert— ““( ) the actual and expected effects of climate change on the environment and populations;”” The noble Duke said: I hardly need to emphasise that much of our position in these debates has focused thus far on putting science in the driving seat and ensuring that our targets come from an authoritative and independent committee. That is, we do not want to compromise on the overarching decisions of what needs to be done. Thus, when setting carbon budgets, it is essential that scientific knowledge about climate change, relevant technology, the economic impact of proposals, fiscal policy and some of the other issues emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury earlier in Committee come to bear on decision-making. However, the list of factors to be considered as it stands in the Bill is not exhaustive and ignores to some degree the very thing that we are trying to protect—the environment. When setting the budgets, proposals must be considered in terms of their broader environmental impact as well as the impact on the population that inhabits it. In our efforts to stop global warming we must avoid spoiling the very thing that we are trying to protect. We need to be sure that we do not get into a situation whereby, in our debate about policy, we are prevented from seeing the forest for the trees. The proposals for reducing carbon emissions must, therefore, be considered in light of potential impacts on the environment. I put it strongly to the Committee that carbon budgets should take into account the broader issues of sustainability and adaptation, and I hope to find support on this subject. Essentially, the impact on the environment and people should not be ignored when budgets are set. If a carbon budget were set that would mean sustaining damage to the environment in reaching it, we would be faced with a policy oxymoron and have to seek out alternatives. The other amendments in the group slightly shift the language of the Bill. As it stands, the Bill stipulates that a number of factors must be taken into account in relation to the Secretary of State’s decisions about budgets, but we feel that this is far too narrow. Our amendments that replace ““the decision”” with ““climate change”” shift the focus to ensure that the impact of climate change on various factors such as taxation and public spending are considered. The important point about budget-setting should be not how the Secretary of State’s decision will affect such factors, but how climate change will affect them. This is in line with our belief that the changing climate should be the primary factor in our decision-making. Obviously, all manner of environmental and economic considerations go into the production of a carbon budget. However, these amendments seek to ensure that climate change drives budget-setting. I would be the first to admit that this approach once again raises the question of what climate change is. In many ways that highlights what appears to be a great gap in the Bill. There is no definition. The purpose clauses that we discussed in the first day of Committee hinted at the issue, but only as far as temperature is concerned. ““Climate change”” is a nice cosy little title, but what we have is almost entirely a carbon emissions reduction Bill. Clause 10(2)(a) is more or less tacked on and thus conveys the ability to consider developing scientific knowledge. Only one of the clause headings in the Bill proposes a report on climate change, but only by Welsh Ministers to the Welsh Assembly. If that really is what is meant, it seems a rather solitary burden for Welsh Ministers, given that we are putting in place this high-powered, technical committee. This leads me to think that it might be appropriate at a later stage to introduce amendments to make one of the first responsibilities of the committee to produce a report on the criteria against which it thinks climate change should be judged, and on how the present climate measures up to them. It could then be asked to say, along with its periodic report on carbon emissions, how the climate is progressing and what changes, if any, have taken place. This would have the advantage of letting the rest of us see on what issues the Secretary of State would exercise his extensive Henry VIII powers. I beg to move.