Anyone for stopping the growth in air travel?

The government’s flagship Climate Change Bill has received a lot of attention including pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee of both Houses. It completed its passage through the House of Lords on 31 March 2008. It now goes to the House of Commons where it will receive more public attention. Eight days in committee stage and four more day at report stage, the Bill left the Lords in better shape than it entered. I expect the government, in the Commons, to reverse some, though not many, of the changes made.

The Bill establishes a duty on the government to reduce UK carbon emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2020 and by at least 60 per cent by 2050 against 1990 levels. There was a vigorous debate on whether the 2050 target should be a 60 per cent or 80 per cent reduction and we can expect the same in the Commons.

A new independent body, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) is to be established to advise the government by 1 December 2008 if the 2050 commitment should be raised. The CCC will also advise how the 2050 target should be achieved through a 15-year rolling programme of three five-year carbon budgetary targets.

There was a great deal of discussion in the Lords about the powers of the CCC, its relationship to government and to parliament, and its composition. The Bill has emerged with a greatly strengthened status for the CCC and more transparent reporting procedures for both government and the CCC.

During the Committee Stage the government announced the first six appointments to the CCC including Lord Turner of Ecchinswell as Chairman-designate and Lord May of Oxford. The appointments were widely welcomed as a sign of the quality and independence of the CCC.

An issue that divided the Lords was the extent to which the reductions in carbon emissions can be achieved by paying for reductions in emissions elsewhere in the world, sometimes described as buying external carbon credits, permissible under the Kyoto framework.

This seemingly arcane issue goes to the heart of different views on how best to reduce global emissions. An opposition amendment was approved to limit these external credits to no more than 30 per cent of the UK five-year net carbon budgets. It seems likely that the government will seek to reverse this in the Commons.

Details around the proposal of a 15-year rolling programme of  three five-year carbon budgetary targets for the UK also provoked much debate. Should these be three-year budgets? What level of sectoral breakdown should be included? Should aviation and shipping be included from the start or await international agreement whether at EU level or beyond?

We can expect the aviation and shipping issue to be raised again in the Commons. From an initial position that resisted sectoral carbon targets, the government has conceded some ground with an amendment that gives the CCC powers to advise on sectors that offer particular opportunities to reduce carbon emissions.

Should the CCC advise on or even determine strategies and policies to help achieve the carbon budget targets? The Conservative front bench argued for a strongly executive role for the CCC while the government and Liberal Democrats argued that these were matters for the elected government and for parliament. Will the Conservative front bench position be the same in the Commons?

Setting national carbon budgets for five to 15-year periods over the next 48 years will involve issues for most arms of government. Much heat if less light was generated by debate on whether the secretary of state acts for the whole government in implementing the duties and powers under the Bill.

 In the end, the opposition voted through an amendment to provide for the prime minister to report to parliament on proposals and policies for meeting carbon targets although all practical powers and responsibilities under the Bill will still lie with the secretary of state, i.e. acting on behalf the government as a whole.

Another key element of the Bill provides increased powers to establish carbon trading schemes as a way of combining emissions reductions with lowest cost efficiency. Apart from the aviation and shipping issue and the extent of external credits, much time was spent on understanding how existing and new carbon trading schemes might work and interact and how existing carbon reduction schemes would be affected.

The minister gave an assurance that it would be inconceivable for a scheme implementing trading in personal carbon allowances to be introduced under the powers contained in the Bill. This assurance was also provided by the Liberal Democrats but not by the Conservative front bench.

Major changes were made to the Bill in the area of adaptation to climate change. Changes agreed upon included establishing a Climate Change Adaptation Sub-Committee of the CCC. It’s duty would be to advise government on the need for and adequacy of policies and actions to adapt the UK to the potential impact of climate change in the years ahead. The duties and powers of the government on adaptation to climate change have been strengthened.

Finally, the Bill included one of those add-ons when departments seize the opportunity offered by a new Bill. Powers are given to establish five pilot projects for reducing household waste through charging for collection or by council tax discounts to encourage behaviour change. Councils will be invited to make competing proposals.

The media gave more coverage of this issue than any other during the progress of the Bill through the Lords: council tax and charges for household waste make better headlines than the powers of the CCC, carbon targets for 2050 and adaptation to long-run effects of climate change.

Though there were disagreements on some substantive issues, there was a broad consensus on the Bill in the Lords. Will that consensus hold once objectives are turned into policies and action such as more regulations, major nuclear energy expansion, higher prices and charges for things like energy, car and air travel?  

During the Lords considerations, a proposal to change to permanent BST as a daylight saving device was opposed by the Conservative front bench partly on the grounds that it was opposed by the majority of the British public. Anyone for stopping the growth in air travel?

Lord Woolmer of Leeds, formerly MP for Batley and Morely, 1979-1983.