Monday, October 29, 2007

Climate change bill to be 'stronger'?

Every now and then something the government does surprises me, and this is no exception. The original draft climate change bill has been out for public consultation since last March, something that almost inevitably results in a major watering down of the proposed measures.

But, as reported in the Guardian this afternoon, in this case not; the amended proposals have actually come back with the recommendations potentially strengthened!

For example, they are now talking about including the emissions from the aviation and shipping industries (and quite right too!), and "the revised bill also raises the possibility of raising the emissions reductions further". (Oh, that's spoiled it a little for me, there's that word 'possibility' again.)

"The bill will make the UK the first country to put reducing carbon emissions into law. The bill, to be published next month, will put a legal duty on the government to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050".

Well, let's see, if we cannot meet the 20% from renewables by 2020, I see it getting rather more difficult to meet a target of reducing ALL emissions by 60% by 2050. But then, of course, this lot won't be in power, and it will be a different government who has to meet (or, of course, lower to something that is achievable) that historically set target.

Addendum:
The proposed bill now also includes for some statutory powers for local councils to "pilot incentives for household waste minimisation and recycling." As reported by letsrecycle.com. And, yes, you've guessed correctly, what that almost certainly means is the introduction of pay as you throw schemes.

However, the statement "Any new schemes must be revenue neutral and should not lead to an increase in the overall cost to local residents." rather fills me with dread. In my experience, 'revenue neutral' normally means I finish up paying more for the same services!

Addendum 2:
There is now a useful Q&A section on the climate change bill in the Guardian too.

No comments: