Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Cathcart (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 January 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Climate Change Bill [HL].


Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 105: 105: Clause 20, page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (2) The noble Earl said: After the recent convention on climate change meeting in Bali, who can be in any doubt that there are many shades of opinion on the importance of tackling climate change? I was particularly struck by the claim that the US position on binding targets will alter once the current Administration are no longer in place. Is subsection (2) intended to cover the position should such a move take the form of a renegotiation of Kyoto? The Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on 22 November implies quite clearly that the Kyoto base years are set and that the corresponding UK gas emissions are known. Why is it necessary to make provision for determining the amount of net UK emissions for the year 1990? Why would the UK Government need to redesignate base years? Could this provision be used to fudge a situation where performance against the original targets was unsatisfactory? Would it be possible for this mechanism to be used more than once in respect of one or more targeted gases? I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c855 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Aviation Climate change Carbon dioxide Environment protection International cooperation Pollution control Standards Shipping Carbon emissions Climate Change Committee
Legislation
Climate Change Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk