I think that I understand the reasoning, purpose and motivation behind the amendment, but if we read it strictly it could become a climate sceptic’s charter, as it states that it, "““must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to, or deterioration of …the economy””."
If I were of a climate sceptic bent, I would use that provision as far as I could legally to neuter everything that is trying to be achieved. That is the risk of the amendment. I clearly applaud the noble Earl and the other noble Lords who tabled the amendment for bringing biodiversity to the fore but, in a different context earlier, my amendment was about taking it into consideration and then weighing it up.
In this broader area of risk, particularly in terms of ecology, we are talking about precautionary principles, and it immediately becomes extremely conservative in terms of its interpretation. The amendment as drafted could undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, so it requires considerable rethinking.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Teverson
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 January 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c782-3 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:01:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432280
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432280
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432280