Proceeding contribution from Lord Deben (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 21 October 2009. It occurred during Opposition day on Climate Change (Political Response).
Climate Change (Political Response)
I will continue, if I may. The Climate Change Act 2008, rather than being a great Government triumph, was, first, forced on the Government, and, secondly, had to be constantly improved by the Opposition. I remember the battle on 80 per cent., and how long it took to win the Government round. Although I am pleased that the Government are on side, let us not take it as a great achievement. Let us look at how things have played out. Building Schools for the Future is still not right, because we still have to choose between green schools and big enough schools. As for recent changes, the new Ministry of Justice has installed hydrofluorocarbon air conditioning, and the same is true of the new Home Office. We know that HFCs are the most potent global warmer. We warned the Government, and they heard the warning. They said that they would act, but they did not do so. In every single case, we find the Government have not given the lead that they should. I do not want to go on about Heathrow, but how on earth can one go and fight such a battle at Copenhagen, when one has given the go-ahead to an utterly unnecessary and unacceptable extension to Heathrow? I walked into my local prison—voluntarily, I am happy to say—and I was pleased to see on its energy notice that it has the lowest level possible, and if there were a lower one, it would have that. When I asked, however, I was told that there was no money for that. We are pouring out energy as a result of the fact that not even the smallest things are being done. Take the scrappage scheme—no other Government would produce a scrappage scheme that allowed one to scrap a car and buy the biggest gas guzzler one likes. Where is the connection there? It is all very well for the Minister to utter soothing words, but let us consider the Obama statement about what the American Government would do. Some 38 per cent. of those measures contained a real green element, but where were we? Somewhere down in the low teens. Why were we not as good as the United States? Why were we not as good as Korea or even France? What was the Minister doing in allowing the Prime Minister to put forward something that put us at the bottom of the league?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 497 c1005-6
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Conservation Climate change Environment protection Energy Government departments Planning permission Public bodies Public expenditure Standards Renewable energy Carbon emissions
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:35:22 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_587105
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_587105
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_587105