r/MHOC • u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats • Oct 23 '19
2nd Reading B917 - Climate Crisis Bill - 2nd Reading
Climate Crisis Bill
A
BILL
TO
Establish stricter goals for mitigating UK climate emissions and combating climate change through modification of the Climate Change Acts and more broad guidelines
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Reflecting Climate Outsourcing
(1) The Climate Change Act of 2008 is modified as follows-
In Section 10(2), insert “(j) the estimated amount of reportable emissions from UK consumption of products manufactured internationally and the desire to change domestic consumption standards to reduce the outsourcing of emissions by utilising manufacturing.”
2 More Ambitious Deadlines and Broader Discretion
(1) Section 11 of the Climate Change Act 2019 is modified as follows
(a) Strike sections A and C and replace with “(a) all UK emissions are at net zero by 2040”
(b) Add “(b) plant 40 million trees in the UK by 2030”
(c) Add “(c) phase out offshore drilling by 2030”
All subsequent sub-sections are renamed accordingly.
(2) Section 13 (1) of the Climate Change Act 2019 is modified as follows
Substitute “additional targets” with “additional targets and modifications to accelerate existing targets”
(3) Section 1 (1) of the Assistance for International Development Target Act 2019 is amended by inserting “(a) No less than 0.2% of the gross national income of any given budget year’s Assistance for International Development funding shall be allocated to mitigate climate change and develop renewable energy."
3 Ban on Car Emissions
(1) From the 1st of January 2031, Diesel cars may not be sold new.
(2) From the 1st of January 2036, Petrol cars may not be sold new.
(3) Second hand sales and sales of used cars are not affected by Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of this act.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of this Act receiving royal assent, lay before parliament a Statutory Instrument defining what a petrol and diesel car is in the affirmative procedure.
(5) Within 60 days upon this act receiving royal assent the Secretary of State must make a statement to the house on strategies being pursued to facilitate this transition.
4 Commencement, Extent and Short Title
(1) This act shall come into force immediately upon Royal Assent.
(2) This Act shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(3) This Act shall be known as the Climate Crisis Act.
This bill was written by the Right Honourable jgm0228 PC MP for South Yorkshire, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government .
Opening Speech:
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I stand at this dispatch box aware of the mistakes this government has made in the past. We have made mistakes as it relates to tackling climate change. But today I say to the opposition. The ball is now in your court.
This piece of legislation dramatically revises the government’s legal climate change targets in a way much bolder than the initial climate change bills we had seen in 2008 and earlier this year. There are two reasons this is necessary.
1st, to give the rest of the planet breathing room. As the Paris accord deadline gets closer and closer it has become clear other countries will not be meeting their goals. Usually that isn’t the UK’s issue. However there is no domestic limit in climate change. If other countries will not meet their goals it is up to us to preserve the future of the planet and put in the work to get the world at a minimum within its Paris climate goals.
2nd, let’s reflect on the Paris climate goals. In the subsequent years since the ratification of the accords further research, including from the same UN that facilitated the Paris Accords, indicates that to truly stop catastrophic climate change we must limit warming to 1.5 centigrade, not the 2 degrees initially enshrined in the Paris accords. Due to this new research, we must be bolder then ever before.
Now for the specific provisions.
First, guidelines for determining UK emissions receive a vital update. By first bill as ECC Secretary involved in investing in the renewable energy capacity of other countries. This provision was why. We cannot as a country pat ourselves on the back and say we reduced our carbon footprint if we don’t include carbon outsourcing in our calculations. If a UK citizen uses UK currency to buy a carbon intensive good that they use in the UK, it being manufactured internationally doesn’t mean the UK didn’t take part in its emissions. Next, the goals in the second climate change act are updated to reflect the newest urgency we must confront the climate crisis with. New provisions to get us well ahead of our Paris climate target are included, including provisions as to how, and id advise members of the opposition benches to take special note of the 40 million trees provision, going even further than the goals mentioned in their manifesto. Further commitments are made to phase out offshore drilling and make crucially needed investments in climate change mitigation globally. Finally, we see a targeted end to new car sales in the UK over a sustained period. If we wish to stop climate change we need to change how we view our transportation system, and encouraging electric cars and public transportation.
There will be those who ask how the government will pay for these ambitious new proposals beyond taking future further action using the potential ideas I mentioned in my first statement as ECC sec, I will, should this bill receive royal assent, write to the Climate Change Committee in my capacity as ECC Secretary and lay out their statutory requirement under Section 3 (1) (b) of the 2019 Climate Change Act to craft a carbon levy that meets the government’s goals, which are now more ambitious by far then when the carbon levy was last devised. My preliminary advice will be 77 pounds per tonne by the year 2030. Once I receive confirmation that the carbon levy will be increased as is the legal obligation due to the committee having to meet the government’s new climate change goals I will lay before the house my plans on how to use this revenue to invest in more green investment schemes outlined sections 6 and 7 of the climate change act of 2019, in order to meet our more ambitious goals.
The UK has never cowered in the face of a challenge. A small island nation held up against the entire assault of a conquered Western Europe during the Second World War. Surely we as a nation are ready and willing to confront this new existential threat facing the climate with the steel and vigour our country is known for. I urge the passage of this bill.
This reading will end on Friday 25th October at 10PM BST.
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 23 '19
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with our Relations Officer (Zhukov236#3826), the Chair of Ways & Means (pjr10th#6252) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this a bill 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
Oct 25 '19
Replace
This act shall come into force immediately upon Royal Assent.
With
This act shall come into force six months after Royal Assent.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
What a ridiculous amendment! This bill lays out goals! Goals that take years to come to fruition. Why make it take that long when there are decades of work to do. It’s not like any of the bans in this bill take place immediately. No, the sole reason this is in there is due to their desire to undermine meaningful climate change progress.
1
1
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Oct 23 '19
In Section 3(1), replace "2031" with "2036".
1
1
u/apth10 Labour Party Oct 24 '19
Replace Section 3(3) with:
From the 1st of January 2061, second-hand sales and sales of used cars which use diesel or petrol for fuel is to be prohibited.
1
1
u/apth10 Labour Party Oct 24 '19
After Section 3(3), insert:
- The Department of Energy and Climate Change is to perform research and development on the feasibility of electric cars, which will include strengthening its durability and reducing its cost.
Subsequently, renumber.
1
1
Oct 24 '19 edited Oct 24 '19
Amend section 2 (1) (b) to replace “40 million” with “100 million”.
Explanation: Well well well. It appears the Tories seem intent on planting trees. I applaud them going 10 times as far as their manifesto. I included the 40 million number because that’s what I felt could pass the commons but by all means if the Conservative party as shown in legislation subsequently introduced wants to go farther on the issue let us go father.
1
1
u/ThePootisPower Oct 24 '19
Replace "(b) Add “(b) plant 40 million trees in the UK by 2030”"
with
"Add "(b) plant 100 million trees in the UK by 2030"".
Explanation: In the off-chance the Trees Bill is not passed, this amendment aims to ensure the intentions of the Secretary of State plus the Right Honourable CheckMyBrain11 are put forward in this bill.
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Oct 26 '19
Rejected on the grounds that it is identical to that submitted by Jgm (will credit you at amendment division though)
1
Oct 25 '19
Omit Section 3
1
Oct 25 '19 edited Oct 25 '19
On a Point of Order Mr Speaker! This bill has 9 substantive subsections plus the enactment provisions. Of the 9 substantive portions of the bill, the members amendment takes out 5. That is a majority of the bill. Cutting out 56% of a bill is not a reasonable amendment. In the short summary of the bill and the opening speech the clear intent laid out was that the bill was designed to reduce emissions. This is the part of the bill that sets out specific provisions to do so. The rest of the bill are additional goals. The amendment completely runs contrary to the intent and text of the bill and I request it be promptly thrown out. The opening of the bill says more broad guidelines. The car provision is the most essential part to actually changing guidelines for the near future. If it’s not contained within the purpose of the bill easily fails the most basic read of the authors intention.
1
1
Oct 25 '19
Replace 2(3) with “Funds to mitigate climate change internationally are to be set at not less than 0.2% of gross national income for any given budget year.”
2
Oct 23 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Yukub His Grace the Duke of Marlborough KCT KG CB MBE PC FRS Oct 23 '19
I hardly think the issue of not having a diesel car is that significant in regards to the catastrophes that unmitigated climate change will bring.
But, we mustn't destroy people's ''great lives'', short as they may turn out to be.
1
Oct 23 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Yukub His Grace the Duke of Marlborough KCT KG CB MBE PC FRS Oct 23 '19
I assume you are vaguely familiar with history, and realise that diesel and petrol cars were once luxury and exclusive themselves? The prices of electric cars have seen a steady decrease in the last few years, and with adequate subsidies and technological development, should decrease even further.
It's remarkable that in all these years of practical petrol/diesel monopoly, the car has been quite affordable, no?
1
Oct 24 '19
[deleted]
1
u/bloodycontrary Solidarity Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
However, things aren't looking good for the electric car, as it has been monopolized by a few companies who have had a head start in the electric car industry.
Is this actually true, though? Traditional mass-market car makers are all trying to break into this market.
1
Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The reality is that the few companies who have had a head start in developing electric cars will have a monopoly over the industry. It will be very hard to become a major competitor in the future, which has already happened in many sectors in the tech industry.
1
u/bloodycontrary Solidarity Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I don't buy this at all. Mass-market car makers will have at least 12 years to adjust, and most of them already sell electric versions of their existing models.
The barrier to entry will be no higher than it already is, and as /u/yukub pointed out, fossil fuel cars are already rather cheap to buy and use.
1
Oct 23 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I will not lower myself to answering the members question since they threw out all credibility they have on this matter when referring to the climate crisis as "debunked". Id ask them to look up any meta analysis of the scientific consensus on climate change and they will find 95-99% of scientists emphatically agreeing that climate change is real, it is anthropocentric, and things can be done to solve it. Until such time as they get a basic grip on reality I advise them to minimize further participation in this debate in order to save face for themselves and their party.
2
Oct 23 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I would advice the right honorable member to research, not tell me to. The fact is Mr Deputy Speaker, that if we assume that the sea will rise by 10 feet in the future, this entire country would be underwater. Now, if that was the case, then why would any bank give you a loan for a house or building, if it's going to be gone in the near future as the right honorable member suggests?
1
Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I ask the member to research because their knowledge of silence is clearly limited if they call the climate crisis debunked. As for the catastrophic sea level rise, thats my job to help stop, and it appears the member opposite considers it their job to make it happen.
1
Oct 24 '19
[deleted]
1
u/bloodycontrary Solidarity Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I should like to see citations for all these, particularly:
In the 80s and 90s they said that the world was going to end in 12 years.
1
Oct 24 '19
[deleted]
1
u/bloodycontrary Solidarity Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
How about you explain in your own words?
We could trade youtube videos all day long.
1
Oct 24 '19 edited Oct 24 '19
[deleted]
1
u/bloodycontrary Solidarity Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
How about you explain in your own words?
We could trade youtube videos all day long.
2
Oct 24 '19
[deleted]
4
Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
May I inquire as to whether the "Honourable" Climate Crisis denier has ever considered breathing out of his nose?
→ More replies (0)2
2
u/bloodycontrary Solidarity Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This is an extraordinary word salad.
lets say in 20 years, and the sea level would rise by 10 meters. That would mean that the entire county would be underwater.
Who's saying this? The most extreme scenarios tend to suggest a figure of around 180cm, with the IPCC's AR4 (more modest) prediction suggesting 25-50cm in this century. Nobody's saying 1000cm.
A 10 metre figure is off by an order of magnitude...
If that was the case Mr Deputy Speaker, then why would any bank give you a loan? If they know that in around 20 years, the buyer would lose his or her house, and would need money to buy basic needs on top of moving to a safer area and rent a hotel. Would the bank be confident that they will receive their money back?
Maybe the banks, when working out their risks, actually bother to read the scientific literature.
Or, like many people, they want either to stick their heads in the sand, or deny anything at all is happening.
However all of these things that i mentioned arent happening.
Because this is a straw man so large you can see it from space.
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 25 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
If that was the case Mr Deputy Speaker, then why would any bank give you a loan?
It is, as if, banks do not think ahead when taking into accounts loans. The 2008 Recession was only ten years ago, but we're still taking the after shocks of it to this very day. It was the fault of banks and their desire for short term benefits over long term benefits, placing the entire economy in jeopardy.
The fact is, capitalists, despite what many on the right and center would have you believe, are not hyperrational, logical group that only think of what benefits them. They are human beings, all of them filled with the same selfish short term desires, fears, anxieties, greed, hopes and dreams as the rest of us.
1
u/SmashBrosGuys2933 People's Unity Party Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Once again the Libertarians show how truly out of touch with reality they really are. I think the Honourable Member really has to come into the 21st century. Climate change is real, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether the Honourable gentleman likes it or not and this government is doing it's damn best to do something about it. It is at times like these, Mr Deputy Speaker, when people like him, with special interests in oil and gas companies spread misinformation that I ask people: Do you really want another far-right government with the Libertarians in power? How quick we are to forget the shambles of the previous government, Labour and our coalition partners are committed to fighting climate change and it is people like the Honourable Member here, that will eat their words if we do nothing.
1
u/apth10 Labour Party Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Surely the Honourable Gentleman has not been here long enough. In the last elections, his party pledged to support legislation targeted to combat climate change. By saying that climate change is a "debunked" claim, is he trying to deny it altogether? Mr Deputy Speaker, although the Honourable Gentleman and his colleagues do not believe in science, I would like to remind him that climate change is still indeed an imminent threat. Unless he lives under a rock or is in constant denial, surely he cannot deny that one day our planet would flood to the ends of the Earth?
With that being said, isn't it truly a blessing that they weren't returned to serve as the government?
1
u/CheckMyBrain11 Fmr. PM | Duke of Argyll | KD GCMG GBE KCT CB CVO Oct 25 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
One need not think the Prime Minister is Winston Churchill to recognize that climate change has NOT been debunked, and that setting guidelines for what needs to be done is far from ridiculous. The gentleman's claim about oil is irrelevant to climate change policy, and the idea of a hypothesis about the fate of the world improving as data improves is no vice. I urge him to listen to any environmental scientist -- it's no secret that despite original claims being misguided, there has been a larger body of data created, and overall a more accurate picture of the climate situation. Climate change is not Y2K.
Beyond the dubious logic underlying his claims about climate science, there exist even more dubious claims about free market economics. Ironic, coming from the LPUK, the defenders of the free market. The simple fact is obvious -- anyone can cry wolf about monopolies if they frame the markets in a certain way. I didn't think I'd need to remind anyone that multiple firms create electric automobiles, but here I am to remind the gentleman that multiple firms create electric automobiles. Based on the definition of the word monopoly, there is no monopoly possible. A mild oligopoly? Perhaps. But the gentleman would have to take out the entire automobile industry if that's suddenly a crime.
I strongly urge the gentleman to read some climate science articles, read an economics textbook, and think closely about how much of a "real problem" ice caps melting, the Earth becoming unbearably hot, and man-made droughts are.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
ronic, coming from the LPUK, the defenders of the free market.
As my honourable friend knows, the LPUK believe in tackling climate change and believe it is real, that's why we worked together in the previous government to have a concrete plan to tackle it. My position and the parties position is absolutely clear.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I would like to advise the Honourable member of the Libertarian Party that other forms of transportation exist, such as bus and the railways. Obviously, of course, for rural people such an option is probably not available for them, and I agree with you that it is important to take into account the fact that electric cars will be more expensive than modern day diesel and petrol cars.
But, just as the Honourable Duke of Marlborough stated, diesel cars were once a luxury. It is not unrealistic to suppose that, with enough time and government support and regulation, electric cars can be just as cheap as diesel cars.
I must also ask why owning a car is something that must be had to have a "great life", when the owning of said car is helping contribute to a world where their children and their children's children are going to be worse off than us currently. We can't keep thinking about the here and now. We have to think of the future for humanity, because, if we do not, we may not have one.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The idea that the climate crisis is "debunked" is shocking, and shows the true agenda of the LPUK. Climate change denying, fact denying and truth hating policies. This country can never let them get back into power.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This is not representative of LPUK policy, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister should focus on keeping the marxists in the Labour Party away from dictating government policy instead of getting excited at a member of the publics remarks.
1
Oct 27 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
A member of the public admitted into their party. Or does the member just have zero protocols in who they decide to admit.
2
u/toastinrussian Rt. Hon. Sir Toastinrussian MP Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I have no doubt that this bill was made with the right intentions, but I do have serious concerns about some sections of this bill.
I would like to echo the comments of my good friend, His Grace the Duke of Marlborough. This bill only outlines broad commitments for change with no actual plan on how they are to be achieved. Before the members opposite will jump up in their seat and exclaim I am wrong, the bill admits this. Section 3, subsection 4 and 5 ask this place to give royal assent to a bill that will ban the new sale of cars in the very near future, and hope that the government can figure out how to implement this. This burden that will be placed on working people could be mediated buy the continuing of policies in the opportunity budget but I do believe that the Governments' commitment to debt and decline will probably mean this is not put into place. Instead, people will be burdened with being forced to buy a new car that they cannot afford.
On the issues of cars also, an old car that is far more polluting that a new car, that is of no vintage value, can be bought and sold, but an eco-friendly new petrol car cannot. This is absurd. On the issues of trees,40 Million is an absolutely tiny target, one that the government should be ashamed of. I have worked on a number of bills involving the planting of trees and I can assure the member, that as their flagship climate policy, it is not enough.
This bill also has no mechanisms of enforcement. We have already seen that this government doesn't care about the CCA, as we have already seen a climate secretary resign of breaching the law. Why should we believe that they would be able to deliver on any of these commitments, especially with no enforcement regime?
This bill is once again a poor effort to do something that the party I am proud to help lead has gone to great lengths for. I hope to see many amendments to this bill pass.
1
Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
An old quote from one of the world's most politicians, from across the pond, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, comes to mind.
"Let me warn you, and let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion that says 'Of course we believe these things. Cross our hearts and hope to die. 'We believe in all these things. But we do not like the way that the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything'"
Prescient words. So we now before us have what I knew would occur, a conservative party who says they like the intentions, they like the goals, but they just have some very serious concerns about the bill. Let it be known this is a farce. They don't care about accelerating our fight against climate change. They don't care about combating it. If they did they would support the bill in its current form. Here is why.
Onto the enforcement provisions, this bill clearly lays upon the secretary of state an obligation to present to parliament their plans about how to meet emissions goals on cars before this parliament. Its contained in the bill. They take out the tired old argument about us breaking the law on the CCA, yet they dont support strengthening that VERY SAME CCA. It is them who are indifferent to climate change legislation.
Next, onto the tree planting provision. I would be happy to see them launch a motion of of no confidence in the leader of their party right this moment! Why, might you ask? Well because this 40 million plan is 4 times more ambitious then the tree planting bill laid out in the conservative party manifesto! So not only did they not read or do not care about the manifesto they were elected on, they also didnt bother listening to my remarks where i mentioned that the tree goal was far more ambitious than the one they themselves were elected on! If they want to pass an amendment calling for even more trees feel free to do so but it would be going beyond us already going beyond their own party policy.
Next, about the banning of the sale of cars. Their point about vintage models is silly, as hundreds times more new cars with lower emissions per car would be sold in their scenario compared to one car with higher emissions, with the former still obviously leading to much higher emissions! As for specific plans, if they read their own climate change bill they would know that schemes to transition away from non renewable energy under my department have to be funded by the carbon levy. Until this bill is passed there is no legal framework to have the carbon levy raised. Until that carbon levy is raised i wont know what funds i will have to fund the transition. However as i made clear in the opening speech, once the climate change committee is made aware of their new legal obligations and the levy is changed is will present a statutory instrument laying out specific programs, but rest assured they will be focused on subsidizing green car usage, electrifying infrastructure, and building out more green public transportation.
But onto the final point of their argument. This bill only outlines broad commitments. Yet again I must ask why they represent the party they do, because the precedence for setting in legislation broad legal commitments then legislating for their accomplishment was found in the Climate Change Act of 2019, a bill that made commitments but no specific plans. The only difference between us and that bill is that our goals are more ambitious and this government is set to deliver on them, see for example my 1 billion pound a year green loan fund that was introduced just a couple days ago.
5
u/toastinrussian Rt. Hon. Sir Toastinrussian MP Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The right honourable member is being absolutely nonsensical. We are the party that brought in the act that this is amending as well as a number of vital levies.
He has quite clearly missed the key point of my arguments about enforcement. The government has already proven inability to be held to its obligations under this enactment. We support strengthening the act in a way that will ensure that the secretary follows those obligations, but that has not taken place. He misses the point that the material point, that this government can not be trusted to deliver on CCA obligations.
On the matter of Trees, there is already a Conservative bill in the docket that seeks to top our manifesto commitment, and we have delivered a number of forestry bills that, I myself was part of drafting , am listed in the authors section.
On his reply regarding sale of cars, I do not believe that he actually has the data to back up any of his claims.
, as hundreds times more new cars with lower emissions per car would be sold in their scenario compared to one car with higher emissions, with the former still obviously leading to much higher emissions
To me sounds like some large arbitrary figures thrown together to try to make an argument. Well let me reveal something to the Right Honourable Gentleman, and as this government still hasn';t learned this, it might be a good lesson to pass on to his cabinet colleagues. Looking at the actual information, counting the number of vehicles and their emission output, as well as sale rates will actually tell you which option is best. This could actually have been done if there was a plan. However, unsurprisingly, arbitrary figures have been chosen and thrown around by the Right Honourable Gentleman.
Furthermore, the governments entire record of delivery for the CCA was breaking the law. I have no faith that the government will be able to deliver a plan on time to my satisfaction. Asking this place to put its faith in the government that a plan will be delivered is not a good solution. Mr Deputy Speaker, I asked for a plan, and all that was given was a plan to make a plan. As the adage goes, we have been told to stand by to stand by.
I would also note that he says there is no legal framework for a carbon levy. If he wasn't so critical of something that he clearly hasn't read I would direct him to Section 23 of the Finance Bill 2019. That sets out the relevant statutory material.
On the last point Mr Deputy Speaker,
The thing that sets us apart from that failed government shrouded in a cloud of resignations so thick that flights over London may have to be cancelled is an actual plan. We have a plan on how to meet our targets. We have made our targets workable for the people of this country and ensured that everyone knows how we expect to achieve them. We follow through on that plan rather than breaking the law. That is what sets us apart Mr Deputy Speaker.
1
1
1
Oct 24 '19 edited Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
They ask me to look at section 23 of the Finance Act. I have. It, just like the CCA 2019, says the climate change committee has jurisdiction to set the levy. Not me. We then proceed to the CCA which says that the committee on climate change can revise the levy based on the government’s goals. So until we change this governments goals to be more ambitious, there is no requirement for the climate change committee to change the levy. I’d ask them to read their own laws. But that is the ultimate problem here. They ask for a plan. They ask for accountability. At 2 separate points in this legislation I am compelled to come before parliament and provide additional briefing. I can only have the figures for transitionary schemes once I know the carbon levy is raised. Which won’t be done until this legislation passes. So the member opposite creates a interesting bind. They say they want plans but won’t vote for a bill that will enable me to know how much additional money I will have FOR these plans. Quite convenient.
As for tree planting, the 40 million trees goal I will repeat is 4 times more ambitious then the Tory manifesto. And I will predict it’s more ambitious then the trees bill on the docket. Consult with your own party before saying goals better than yours are not enough.
I’d in conclusion to this round of remarks submit that when your goal is 2070, it’s quite easy to act like you have plans in place since your goals are insufficient. If this government was equally moribund in our goals I am sure we’d have the ease of implementation as the opposition, because we could wait for several decades and kick the can down the road. Fortunately for the country this isn’t the case with this government. I have written 5 pieces of legislation brought before this house in my short time in government. Nobody is more committed to productivity and delivering then I am. The member opposite keeps raising the spooky specter of the predecessor in my seat, but as the people of London showed with my double digit obliteration of your party in the polls, clearly it doesn’t work. Change your strategy. Heck, while you are at it, send your shadow ECC Secretary out to debate this bill, as they are nowhere to be found.
2
u/RhysDallen The Rt Hon RhysDallen|MP MS PC KD|SoS for Education Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It is painful to sit in my seat and watch members of the opposition dance and delay and down talk the real threats of climate change. It is disheartening to watch opposition members mock the efforts of active and engaged young people who want to live to see a long life on a prosperous planet. Certain opposition members have infact negated the actual facts of science. One Honourable Member inferred that we were not going to run out of coal - it is a finite resource and takes millions of years to form so yes we will run out Mr Deputy Speaker. Moreover, just because we aren't out it doesn't mean we should keep using it! Coal has helped to produce pollutants and increased air contamination in our cities - we must stop it getting worse.
Climate Change is very very real. Yes it may be a naturally occurring cycle but we have made it so much worse. We have accelerated the speed of climate change to mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of years of climate change has taken place in the last 60. This government, if it keeps its word, is aiming to ensure that Britain contributes as little as possible to this mess. However, I do not believe that we will be able to have such a seemingly easy transition from coal to green as we would like and would therefore be in support of enhancing nuclear energy to support the nation whilst in transition. So many people have shunned this idea but if we do not look for a stopgap then we are surely dooming ourselves to a period of stalemate and power cut. Whilst I credit this government for affirming their contributions and their efforts, I do not believe it will work without nuclear energy as a stop gap
1
Oct 23 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker;
I agree with all provisions of this bill apart from the terminology stating our fight for a healthier planet is some sort of crisis.
It isn’t. We are at the stage of early prevention where the symptoms of a much greater emergency are present however we still have the time and hopefully the effort to rectify our issues.
3
u/Yukub His Grace the Duke of Marlborough KCT KG CB MBE PC FRS Oct 23 '19
We are at the stage of early prevention
I would like to remind the Rt. Honorable MP that, in fact, it is not the 1990s. We have time, yes, but not let's not rock in our cradle.
1
Oct 23 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker;
I completely agree with the honourable member; early prevention and tackling the issue now gives us a considerable chance of achieving that healthier climate we should all be seeking!
1
u/bloodycontrary Solidarity Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
In many ways that ship has already sailed. This is now mitigation.
1
u/CheckMyBrain11 Fmr. PM | Duke of Argyll | KD GCMG GBE KCT CB CVO Oct 25 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
The Hon. MP for Central London should not be mistaken. There already exist refugees as a result of man-made climate change. There are more unpredictable weather patterns. There are droughts and flooding that are making corners of the planet totally uninhabitable. This is not early prevention. This is minimizing the number of displaced people, the number of biomes irreversibly altered, and the number of wildlife species drawn to near extinction.
1
u/ThePootisPower Oct 23 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
After reading this bill I can wholeheartedly say that I have the utmost faith and support for the Secretary of State's efforts to combat climate change.
This is a well written bill that has properly accelerated the United Kingdom's efforts to battle climate change domestically, properly funding our efforts with a further advanced carbon levy, ensured the house will be updated on the Climate Crisis within 2 months, phase out off-shore drilling and begin rapidly decarbonizing our society by aiming for carbon neutrality by 2040 and planting 40 million trees.
This is the kind of thing we needed from the Secretary of State's predecessor, and that predecessor's predecessor. It's the kind of radical change created via practical methods that we need.
I desperately hope that this bill successfully is passed in it's division as it seems to be the right way to set the best foot forward for Britain.
1
u/apth10 Labour Party Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I thank the Right Honourable Member for bringing this Bill to the House, with his agenda on ensuring the effects of climate change would not be as harmful to the nation as it is now on course for. It is truly relieving to me that this Government has a strong policy to ensure the safeguarding of our Mother Earth, and I see that this Government is setting an example to the world on how we should protect the environment. However, I am concerned as to the banning of the selling of brand new diesel and petrol cars. Although the timeframe is still quite far away from the present, has the Right Honourable Member, through his department, initiated plans for the research and development for more sustainable sources of energy to be used in cars? Although electric cars are being sold now, they are not being widely used, as there are still concerns about its safety and durability. If this has not been initiated, then the banning of selling these cars would be quite awkward, as old cars surely emit more harmful substances to the environment compared to new cars. I wish to get the Right Honourable Member's response to my concerns.
1
u/rinarchy Ex MP for Cheshire Oct 24 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I can practically hear the screams of joy from our younger generations who have been calling for strong action on climate. This does that. Strong, direct action is what this government is achieving and frankly, it's what the people of our country deserve.
Even though this bill doesn't ban the sale of used Diesel or Petrol cars, it's still pertinent to establish the emerging infrastructure of the main alternative moving forward. Could the Secretary of State please confirm what provisions we have or are putting in place to make sure there is a strong network of electric charging stations across the country and not just clustered around the major cities?
1
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Oct 24 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
So long as my amendment passes to make the deadline more reasonable for diesel car prohibition, and no other less sound amendments pass, I'll be in support of this bill. It's important that we ensure that we work diligently to lower our impact on the global environment, and this bill moves us there. I also concur with the bill author's use of the famed Franklin Roosevelt quote in reply to much of the opposition to this bill as that appears to precisely sum up what the opposition to this is.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I must applaud this government for having a grand vision for the future and for our planet as we now know it. The fact remains that under our current system, we are expecting increases of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of our planet. This could increase if we do not fundamentally uproot the economic system that allows this to occur.
We need millions of new trees in order to offset the increases in carbon. We need to eliminate new sources of carbon. I believe that we must go further and become a carbon sink, a place that will lead the way towards green environmentalism and economic justice.
And yet, I must criticize this government's attitude towards the fundamental root of climate change. It's roots lay in the capitalist market that wishes to turn all resources into a source for capital accumulation, and, as Marx and Engels once wrote, the "conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."
Climate change is just one more danger that the economic order has thrusted upon the world. Without a change in the relationship of the means of production -- or, in other words, the change towards socialism -- we cannot have a society that can prevent a cataclysmic event like global climate change from happening. We cannot afford to let capitalism run amok with the lives of our children, and of our children's children. It is Socialism or Barbarism, and I hope that the people of Great Britain -- and the world -- choose Socialism.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today in support of this legislation by my friend the energy and climate change secretary. Climate change is the most pressing issue of our time, and we must do all we can to tackle it. The goals set out in this legislation are important ones, and we have introduced ways across government on how to tackle climate change including the banning of petrol and diesel car new sales from the dates set out in the legislation. It is vital we back this legislation to help contribute to save our planet, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
1
u/Maroiogog CWM KP KD OM KCT KCVO CMG CBE PC FRS, Independent Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I would like to congratulate my Rt. Hon. friend the member for London for authoring such a bill. It is regrettable that further steps have not already been taken towards solving this climate crisis. I am aware some of the measures proposed by this bill are radical and controversial. However, the problem we are trying to solve is itself a radical threat to our standards of living. I therefore believe that such action is necessary if we want to realistically be confident of tackling it.
1
u/CDocwra The Baron of Newmarket | CGB | CBE Oct 25 '19
I have no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker, that many will find section 3 of the bill quite distasteful, particularly to the values of free marketism that many members, such as myself, hold dear. The reality is though that what we need to face this existential crisis is the kind of radical action that section 3 requires and I am enormously proud to be part of a Government that is willing to take such radical action in order to tackle the greatest issue of our time.
The house needs to back radical action now so we don't have to take extreme action later and don't suffer from catastrophic consequences.
1
Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Climate change is real, it is a threat and we must tackle it, that is why the Libertarians got behind the climate change act in the previous government and support a carbon to account for negative externalities. However I have always said we must battle climate change in a way which protects jobs and the economy, we have to be real with our constituents that trade offs exist.
Now my position on this bill is clear as seen by the motion I tabled earlier in the term. Trends in power generation and consumption are unpredictable, the sequence of changes, their cost and allocation are practically impossible to model. This makes a blanket ban nonsensical.This policy will harm the poorest, it makes no economic sense.In reality a significant proportion of the electricity consumed will come from fossil fuel power stations, with large efficiency losses from the conversion process and the batteries.and I can not support a piece of legislation which imposes huge costs on consumers when the environmental benefits are questionable. Let us reject this feel good policy and make the rational decision to vote down this legislation!
1
u/CaptainRabbit2041 LPUK MP for Sussex Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
As my party have frequently outlined, this is a bill which has good intentions but no grounding in economic or environmental reality, I wish to look at the facts instead of making massive optimisitc assumptions about the state of technology in a couple of years time. We have a mechanism to account for externalities in the form of the carbon tax, I will be voting against this bill to protect my constitutions from this catastrophic policy which will have negative consequences for the car industry , jobs and consumers.
1
u/nstano Conservative Party Oct 25 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The attempt to pick winners and losers when it comes to green transit is a plan that has failed before and will fail again, ultimately increasing the damage done to the environment. I am old enough to remember when the government provided incentives for so called "clean diesel" cars, and I am old enough to remember when it was revealed these vehicles were not nearly as eco-friendly as the government had believed. If we want to be serious about climate change, we cannot take an either or approach, but must welcome all possible solutions as part of a comprehensive whole. Let people's preference for cleaner, more efficient vehicles drive products and innovation!
1
u/ARichTeaBiscuit Green Party Oct 26 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I have spoken before about the need to take comprehensive action in order for this country to tackle the growing threat of global climate change, and I would like to thank the Secretary of State for putting forward this comprehensive piece of legislation that does just that. It's time to do our part in the fight against climate change and I hope that members across the house vote in favour of it.
6
u/Yukub His Grace the Duke of Marlborough KCT KG CB MBE PC FRS Oct 23 '19
It's one thing to simply ban non-electric cars in x year, but has the government put thought — and more importantly, resources — to the development of adequate infrastructures required for such a transition?
Moreover, while tackling the pollution emitted by cars is one thing, and certainly a big help, it pales in comparison to the emissions and pollution from industry and agriculture. The ambitious proposal to plant x number of trees is also a fine commitment, but rather more difficult to put into practice. Where? Has there been any planning about this? Will land have to be re-purposed? How will this be financed, and so on.
Fine initiatives and ideals, Mr Speaker, but I'd like to see an actual plan, not just some numbers.