Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 99: 99: Clause 19, page 10, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ““a greenhouse gas as defined by section 64(1)”” The noble Lord said: I sometimes think that I am trying to do the Government a favour in moving these amendments but that it is not always appreciated. We come to the issue of defining greenhouse gases and the strange anomaly that although this is called a Climate Change Bill, it deals only with carbon dioxide—not that we in any way underestimate the importance of carbon dioxide’s contribution to global warming. I remember being reprimanded by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, at the end of the first Committee sitting—and I am glad that she is able to join us now. She told me off when I tried to change the carbon budget period to three years, saying that it did not in any way comply with the international time periods and that we should have an international dimension. She said: "““It is extremely important that the budget setting period not only chimes with the needs of industry but chimes very much with the international environment. We are not just talking about achieving results on our own. We aim to achieve results in an international context””.—[Official Report, 11/12/07; col. 221-22.]" That is absolutely right. The Kyoto targets relate to greenhouse gases and not just to carbon dioxide, and the EU targets for 2020 and beyond concern greenhouse gases. The UK Government were part of setting that at last year’s spring European Council. Looking at the European ETS, we think of it as a carbon trading system, but in fact Annexe II lists the gases included under the directive that set up the trading scheme and—guess what—listed there are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. I have never yet met a sulphur hexafluoride, but the point is that all these gases are extremely important in terms of emissions and they are the accepted basket of gases for measuring the effectiveness of the fight against climate change. However, in the Bill we restrict that. We do not do so for ever—there are clauses to amend the list in future—but at present and for the likely future we say that the provision relates just to carbon dioxide. That is not in line with international practice. Strangely enough, if we were to say that the target was still 60 per cent, although we would want to change it to 80 per cent, then in terms of the 1990 base our reductions in non-carbon greenhouse gases have been far more effective, which makes meeting the targets of the 1990 base slightly easier. However, I believe that those gases should be included. It is equally as important to reduce them according to their weight and use as it is to reduce carbon dioxide. I suggest to the Government that we bring the Bill in line with international and European practice, both of which we have been a part of, and that we include all greenhouse gases so that we can truly call this a Climate Change Bill. I beg to move.