Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 110: 110: Clause 40, page 42, line 24, after ““dioxide”” insert ““and other greenhouse gases”” The noble Baroness said: These two amendments to Clause 40 are probably a good example of what we have just been debating. Of course the Mayor could go further and cover greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. The reason for tabling the amendments is to have a debate about priorities. I return to what I said at the beginning: we are laying some precedents here and it is therefore especially important that we get it right because they will have national and, possibly, international implications. There are very good reasons for including other greenhouse gases in the list, as my amendment proposes. Our obligations under the Kyoto protocol include all greenhouse gases. Several, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are potent contributors to climate change. The EU emissions trading scheme does not include gases other than CO², nor does the draft Climate Change Bill, so it is all the more necessary that we do not lose sight of the need to control those emissions. It may be helpful if I give one example of the problem of concentrating exclusively on CO². The recent Defra Air Quality Expert Group's report,Air Quality and Climate Change: a UK Perspective, predicted a great increase in diesel-fuelled cars, which emit less CO² than petrol-driven cars. Unfortunately, they often emit more of other greenhouse gases and a great deal more particulate matter which can lead to respiratory problems. The report estimated a 93 per cent growth in nitrogen dioxide emissions from diesel-fuelled cars between 2002 and 2020. If we consider that road transport is already responsible for up to 80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide emissions and 40 per cent of particulate matter in large urban areas, that is a very serious figure. Of course, that trade-off might be sensible because of the great CO² savings which are achieved, but it is very important for authorities to be aware of the trade-offs that they are making and that they keep all greenhouse gases in mind. It is also worth notingthat some of the cheapest and easiest emission reductions—the so-called early hits—can be achieved by reducing non-CO² gases. That has been shown by the emissions data over the past decade, which has seen a constant rise, as the Minister will admit, in CO² emissions, but has seen reductions elsewhere. Certainly, this means that we should give extra focus to CO² but it does not mean that we should stop taking advantage of all the other reductions which are demonstrably easier to make. The strategy should plan for a continuation of non-CO² reductions as well as addressing the urgent need for more effective control of CO². I beg to move.