It would, my Lords, but I would not want the Committee on Climate Change to be constrained from arguing that, while it believed that the maximum feasible UK reduction was 20 or 21 per cent, the UK’s international effort ought to be 30 or 35 per cent, given what we believe is essential for the 2050 target. It would be odd if we were constrained from advocating that upper figure by the Bill. My concern is that the amendment could constrain the amount of credit buy-in, when the real objective of its proposers is to set a minimum domestic reduction target. I am quite happy with the Government’s proposal that this matter is handed to the Committee on Climate Change, which I am confident will make a well argued and robustly independent proposal. If noble Lords wish to proceed with the amendment, it should be expressed in terms of a minimum domestic reduction rather than a minimum percentage of the total reduction.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c1413-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:56:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453693
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453693
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453693