Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 61: 61: Clause 11, page 6, line 15, at end insert— ““( ) The proposals and policies set out in the report in subsection (1) must be consistent with achieving sustainable development and must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to, or deterioration of— (a) society, including the health, wealth and well-being of the population; (b) the environment, including biodiversity, living organisms and the ecological systems of which they form part and natural resources; or (c) the economy.”” The noble Earl said: As this Committee certainly appreciates, stopping the negative effects on the environment is not strictly tied to carbon emissions. Just as global warming is a global problem, so too could be the ways in which we combat climate change. Perhaps more aptly, if we are trying to stop the effects of climate change on the environment, we must ensure that our efforts to stop climate change through reducing carbon emissions do not negatively impact precisely on what we are trying to preserve. We do not want to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This amendment seeks to situate our efforts to stop climate change in a broader context. It is essential that we have regard to the populations and societies we are trying to protect. Likewise, the natural world and biodiversity should not be sacrificed. This might seem like an obvious point. No one in this House would advocate building a clean power station if it meant wiping out species of wildlife or causing serious health concerns to neighbouring residents. However, it is important that we have this proviso in the law to ensure our efforts to make this country and the planet greener do not backfire by lacking the scope to deal with all the effects of climate change. For example, biofuels are doubtless part of the solution to climate change because crops can absorb carbon from the atmosphere while growing and then be released into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned. This cycle might mean no net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, growing biofuel demand has led to widespread clearance of rainforest to plant fuel crops. The carbon released from the clearance of rainforests can be enormous. It is not much use if the UK claims to have cut millions of tonnes of carbon emissions by increased burning of biofuel if the country that has produced that fuel increased its carbon emissions by more than that. The sustainable development test would pick that up in a way in which the Bill’s budgets currently may not, as well as identifying problems of biodiversity loss, displacement of communities, and so on, that are also associated with rainforest clearance. Finally I draw attention to paragraph (c) of the amendment requiring sustainable development to have regard to ““the economy””. If we are to combat climate change it will require a serious change in our economic culture. The proposals and policies produced by the Committee on Climate Change should have regard to the ways in which economic development can be made more sustainable, and also the ways in which sustainable development might affect the economy. The stakes are too high to risk economically impractical solutions that might detract from our ability to make further inroads against carbon emissions in the future. I beg to move.