My Lords, the arguments against inclusion seem to confuse two completely different issues. The first is whether aviation and shipping should be included in the carbon account. The second is whether we are ready to include aviation and shipping in a system of penalties and incentives such as the ETS. Because the answer to the second is no, we say that we cannot include the emissions in the account. I really do not understand the logic of that. The emissions are the emissions, and that should mean everything that is emitted. There will be a number of categories of emissions that initially will not be strongly controlled or will not be controlled at all, and this is just another of them.
It is not difficult to estimate what the emissions are for aviation and shipping, although it may not be exactly the same metric that we come to use when we get to the ETS. My argument is that we should put them into the account while the work goes on to find a method of controlling them. In the mean time, we will rely, in the case of aviation, on recasting air passenger duty as best we can so that it reflects CO2 emissions, not simply the number of people, as is already being planned. I would separate out completely what is in the account and the method by which we then seek to control the emissions in question.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Turnbull
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c1018-9 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:36:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_451599
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_451599
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_451599