Friday 9 September 2011

Issue No. 1

FOURTH COMMONWEALTH YOUTH PARLIAMENT DEBATE

Held in the Chamber of the HOUSE OF LORDS

Transcript produced by the staff of House of Lords Hansard.

Order of Business “That this House believes that Commonwealthland should reduce its carbon emissions by 100 per cent by the year 2050”

2.25 pm

The Lord Speaker: Good afternoon, honourable friends and colleagues. I am delighted to welcome you here to the Chamber of the House of Lords. Many of you I have met before—yesterday and the day before—but not all of you, so this is a good occasion to see you all together. I do so warmly welcome you.

I think you all know what it is we are here for but I hope you will forgive me if I go over it a little bit more. I am Frances D’Souza, Baroness Frances D’Souza, and I was very recently elected Lord Speaker of the House of Lords. My role today is to moderate the debate but the work will be all yours.

I reiterate that we will have two speakers, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who will speak for and against the Motion. And just so that you don’t forget what the Motion is, it is:

“That this House believes that Commonwealthland should reduce its carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050”.

Then we will open up the debate as a free for all, so that you will all have a chance to put your views, to comment and to ask questions of the speakers. The most important thing is that you all keep to time. I think you will recognise that the reason for that is because it allows everyone a fair chance to express their views.

You will notice—I am sure this has been pointed out to you, so I am teaching grandmothers to suck eggs—that all around the Chamber are electronic clocks, which will show you when you are standing up to speak that you cannot take more than two minutes. If you do take more than two minutes, I will probably pop up and say, “Time” or even “Order!”, which I am not normally allowed to say in relation to the business and procedure of the House. I will try to insist that you keep to time. Obviously, our key speakers will have five minutes each. As we go through the procedures today, I will remind you time and again what it is that you are meant to be doing in terms of keeping time. Also, when you stand up to speak, could you please say who you are? That is important for the recording that will be made of this event.

I am absolutely delighted that we have here representatives from the House of Commons, who are extremely welcome. I rather hope that they will be here at the end of the session so that they can say a few words about who they are, what they do and who they represent. We also have a representative of the House of Lords, Baroness Hooper, who will be familiar to all of you. Thank you very much for coming.

So without more ado, let me invite the opening remarks from the Prime Minister, Graeme Osborn, of the Young Democratic Party, who will speak for the Motion.

Graeme Osborn: Thank you, Lord Speaker. Fellow youth parliamentarians, we are assembled here today to debate what is arguably the single greatest threat our species has ever faced. It is important, however, to remember that climate change is not the only

problem facing our nation. Youth unemployment, migration of highly skilled workers, economic diversification, food security and pollution—they all pose a serious challenge to the fabric of our society and to the governance of our country.

Climate change is not an isolated problem, and its solutions are not isolated solutions. This is not just a grave threat but also a golden opportunity: an opportunity to diversify our economy and build a prosperous future for our people; an opportunity to solve the problems in our society and build a secure future for our children; and an opportunity for our nation to rediscover the ambition upon which it was founded and to lead the world into a carbon-neutral future.

Many of you will see the 100 per cent figure and say, “This is impossible; it is unachievable”, but I say, “Give hope a chance”. We can develop a green economy, we can create highly skilled jobs for our educated young people and we can work with the private sector to develop new ways of combating climate change.

Make no mistake, this is not an easy task, but neither was achieving our independence or founding a new nation. We will need all the options on the table, including carbon taxes, carbon trading, reforestation and renewable energy sources as well as the many technology sources that have not yet been developed.

So today I invite you to take this opportunity to the heart of this institution and let it guide the good governance of Commonwealthland for decades ahead. Is it ambitious? Yes. Is it a challenge? Yes. Is it achievable? Absolutely.

The Lord Speaker: I now call the Leader of the Opposition, Matthew Crow, of the Progressive Youth Alliance, who will speak against the Motion.

2.30 pm

Matthew Crow: Thank you, Lord Speaker. I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on his remarks and on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. I do not suppose it will surprise honourable youth parliamentarians opposite very much that we are in broad agreement with the principle of a target reduction in emissions. We are the progressive party and we believe that we can go further with this proposal. We are suggesting, as I shall talk about in more detail as I move on, that the 100 per cent reduction is brought forward 10 years to 2040.

The Progressive Youth Alliance acknowledges the severe risks of climate change, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments on a multilateral solution; we will not focus solely on climate change throughout this debate. My party has become used to lending its policies to the Government so I suggest that we move on with interim mid-term targets. I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not choose to mention them; they are ways of holding the Secretary of State to account and of allowing this Parliament to have a say on how we reach the target that is put forward. We are looking at ambitious, front-loaded targets, which we believe are the best way to progress in line with the UK’s Stern report. With front-loading, the Prime Minister will be aware, changes are less serious after the 2020 peak. We are looking at a 2020 target of 40 per cent reductions—

that is ambitious, we know—a 2030 target with a further 30 per cent and a final 30 per cent target for 2040, bringing us to 100 per cent overall.

We want to front-load these carbon emissions, as I explained, because that will impose a pressure that is hard at first, as we acknowledge, but there is an opportunity after the 2020 peak for our party to reduce the pressure. We are very concerned about investment in renewable energies—we have not heard a lot from the Government about that. I am sure we will be asked about funding, so let me explain. We are looking at international investment loans from the development mechanism; China has taken a similar approach, involving around £8 billion.

Before we hear more from the opposing party on the effects of climate change and legislation on business, which I am sure it would like to raise, I assure it that they are our concern as well—we are indeed the progressive party but we also have the concerns of business at heart, and we agree that it is with business that these solutions and the private sector can be found.

The opposing party in this debate must have seen that this debate will focus not solely on energy emissions but also on private sector business—we acknowledge significant contributions from the non-energy-emissions sector. We did not hear a lot about that, either, from the Government.

My party is the progressive force in this Chamber. Moreover, beyond any claims that the Prime Minister may make, my party believes in this proposal. Our manifesto said it and I will deliver it.

The Lord Speaker: We now come to the part where you all have an opportunity to participate. Let me remind you once again to please say who you are and do not go beyond two minutes. We now have a full 90 minutes for you to express your views. I will try to take speakers from alternate sides. It would be helpful if you made just one intervention and we will see how we go with time. Who wants to begin?

Matthew Percy: I fully support the reduction of carbon emissions by 100 per cent. However, I put it to you, Lord Speaker, that 2050 is far too short a time in which to do that. I feel this Parliament will fall short of these targets. I ask the Prime Minister exactly how he intends to make cuts by 100 per cent by 2050, as he proposes.

Alistair Campbell: This is a debate about whether Commonwealthland is a leader or a follower. The experts tell us that an emissions reduction target of 40 per cent globally by 2020 is needed. We need a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. This is what the IPCC and its 2,400 experts told us in their fourth assessment report. We need a global plan to limit emissions and to limit the temperature increase by less than 2 degrees. Commonwealthland reducing its emissions will not reduce global temperatures; however, we can and we should play a part in global action. We should be wary of developing economy status, we should be wary of our vulnerable industries and we should be wary of our industries packing up from Commonwealthland, moving overseas and setting up in places where they do not have the environmental regulation standards or the strict

controls that we in Commonwealthland, as a socially responsible country, put on our business and our industry.

Commonwealthland should not introduce measures that will adversely impact on our 14 million low and middle-income households. So what does this mean? This means that we need a fundamental shift in the economy of Commonwealthland. We need the greatest microeconomic and macroeconomic reforms to achieve a 100 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. We need a carbon tax. That is exactly what this Chamber legislated for yesterday. We need to achieve those interim targets and we need to achieve the final targets.

I support increased investment in clean energy and research and development. Commonwealthland needs to lead the world also in taking global action. As a newly formed country—less than 50 years old—we need to show other developed countries that it is possible to reduce our emissions. We need to be a leader rather than a follower. However, 100 per cent is well achievable, although we need the structural adjustment in our economy, and we need it now.

Cui Yin Mok: I thank the people on the opposite side for agreeing with us when we talk about the extreme need for action, and for action soon. However, you have failed to engage with us on our proposition that this deadline be moved forward to 2040. Ladies and gentlemen and honourable colleagues, let me bring your attention to the good work of the New Economics Foundation based in the UK. It is a think-and-do think-tank and it has done lots of rigorous economic analysis as well as social policy and on-the-ground action in order to research what sort of action can be done from the top and from the bottom to improve our climate change situation. Very recently, it published a report called Zero Carbon Britain 2030. Those on the opposite side speak of being leaders rather than followers. Why are they not going further, and proposing that we do what we want to achieve by 2040 rather than 2050, which is a long time away?

I am tired of the political inertia that we saw at Copenhagen as well as with all the other Governments who we see elsewhere in the world with regard to climate change. I am tired of the politicking that we see so often with climate change.

I put it to you that today we should put aside partisan differences and talk about what we can really do—what we can do as a united Government; we should work with the people of Commonwealthland to achieve a collaborative movement towards the improvement of the climate change situation. We need to mobilise the human capital of Commonwealthland rather than relying purely on businesses, the private sector and all the bureaucracy in the Government; we will never get anywhere if we just do that. I beg you, Lord Speaker, and the people on the opposite side, to please respond to us regarding our proposition on achieving 100 per cent carbon reduction by 2040.

I speak not just as shadow Defence Minister but also as a member of Commonwealthland and as someone from a shared planet—all of us are from it.

James Rondel: I am an independent with the Commonwealth Youth Parliament. I stand before you because I am firmly opposed to both sides—whether it is reducing it by 100 per cent in the next 40 or 30 years. I believe that we have common but differentiated responsibilities with the rest of the world when it comes to climate change and how we are to handle it. I would like to go on to elaborate this.

I believe that under no uncertain circumstances should we reduce carbon emissions at all. I believe that for centuries we have seen western countries develop and develop without being limited, and I would like to remind this Chamber that we are still a developing country. As a developing country, we have responsibilities to our people, 60 per cent of whom are under 30. We need to provide them with jobs. I firmly believe that by implementing this legislation and introducing carbon taxes, we are crippling the industries that are going to provide jobs. Only this morning we saw in the Select Committee that we had to come up with new ways to cope with youth unemployment. I firmly believe that by introducing a carbon tax we are going to strangle industries such as agriculture and manufacturing in the same ways as emissions are strangling the atmosphere. It is for that reason I would like to stress the idea of a common but differentiated responsibility.

Before I go on to what I believe Commonwealthland should do, I should like to introduce a statement of fact to the Chamber. The 19 million inhabitants of New York produce a larger carbon footprint than 766 million people across 50 developing countries. For this reason, I ask this Chamber whether it is us who should be cutting our emissions or is it the West, the already developed countries, which have taken advantage of our atmosphere and have already exposed us. The United States, for example, has still to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Is it not up to them to do it? They have 20 per cent emissions per capita, while we have only 4 per cent. For this reason, I firmly believe that the future is in educating our people so that we are aware of the dangers and how to handle them.

Kevin Kadirgamar: I am from the Northern Territory of Australia, and shadow Minister for Local and Community Affairs with the Progressive Party. Let me commend all young parliamentarians here today for bringing this Motion to the House. I think there is bipartisan agreement on the fact that this issue of climate change presents a direct threat to the very survival of low-lying nations such as ours. The Prime Minister started off by talking of opportunity. How about giving our nation the opportunity to survive past 2050? This would mean bringing the target back to 2040 and being as ambitious as possible; it would mean reaching for the stars so that we might fall on the tree tops.

What we have heard is rhetoric. What we need is action and commitment. We implore all young parliamentarians gathered here today to think of practical steps to make this happen and to achieve this target by 2040. This would mean investing in renewable energy, having a firm commitment to investing in our businesses and giving financial incentives to our local communities and businesses to make this happen. This would mean working together with our younger generation to make sure that this debate does not stop here but continues throughout the generations. Let us continue, as our Progressive Party did, engaging them in policy debates—for example by sending them to the Commonwealth climate change summit, as we did in 2009, when we were in power.

This would mean capacity-building our support for advocacy and aiding advocacy for climate change.

I commend the House once again for bringing this Motion to the Floor. We must make sure that this does not stop here and that we go on and work towards this together.

2.45 pm

Tania Soris: I am a Commonwealth diaspora parliamentarian. I would like to speak against this Motion, simply because this is a completely unrealistic target for Commonwealthland to achieve. I say this because the IPCC fourth assessment report said that carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow between 2000 and 2030 from 40 to 110 per cent globally. I reassert that it is ridiculous for us to think that we can reduce carbon emissions by 100 per cent. I remind this House that our primary concern for our country is economic growth. We need to keep our eyes fixed on that. The climate change agenda is important but it should not be achieved at the expense of our land’s economic growth. A carbon tax should not be imposed. The inflationary effects that that could have on our country would be drastic, and we do not want that for our nation. Our goods would be less competitive, and we do not want that. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote against this Motion.

Guy Howard Hennings-Haahr: I am a diaspora Commonwealth youth parliamentarian. My honourable friend across the way mentions that a developing country, as we are, can complete your goals for 2040 to reduce carbon emissions by 100 per cent without the help of the public sector. I find that doubtful. My honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister speaks about keeping business within Commonwealthland but he also said how important it was to have a carbon tax. I put it to him that a carbon tax would encourage companies and businesses to find greener pastures in other countries economically speaking, because they are business-oriented. Businesses that stay would be encouraged to raise their prices, putting pressure on the middle classes and so on.

Michael Bendall: I speak for the progressives and am a representative from New Zealand. Ridiculous or not, these targets are aspirational for our future.

I begin by stressing what an honour it is to be in the surroundings of Westminster and especially being able to debate here in the Lords Chamber. It is an absolute privilege, and I move a vote of thanks to the House and the CPA for making this a possibility.

Youth Parliamentarians: Hear, hear!

Michael Bendall: I turn to the business in hand. Global warming is without a doubt the biggest issue facing our generation. Let’s be clear. If we do not take an immediate and proactive approach to these issues, it is not us who will face the consequences of the issues that we caused; it is our grandchildren and future generations. Is a world of unpredictable weather, rising seas, warmer temperatures and a polluted atmosphere something that we really want to pass on to future generations? I think not, Lord Speaker.

This issue is greater than the government manifesto plan of pandering to big business and the private sector. Many factors obviously require consideration when deciding on the best approach to combat these issues. We need an approach that does not cut the economy at its knees. We need to take incremental and significant steps towards our emission goals.

Once again, we must be clear that the potential consequences of not dealing effectively with global warming are greater than those relating to the economy. If we remove the domestic and global economy from the picture, what are we left with? We are left with Planet Earth; and we cease to exist as human beings without that. Nothing less than a global approach to these issues will suffice. However, we need to be realistic and to implement proactive measures today and assure a better tomorrow for us, our families, our friends and future generations. Arguments that the current government goals are in line with international standards are simply a cop-out. Let’s lead the world in combating global warming today.

Kishan Bhatt: We must support the Motion to reduce emissions in Commonwealthland by 100 per cent. If we are to do this properly, we must go all the way and aim high. I appreciate that this is an ambitious target but, equally, we must appreciate that this is an important target for the future well-being of younger generations and the environment they will inherit from us. It is no secret that we have provided intensive humanitarian assistance to those who have been affected by a number of recent disasters, which begs the question of whether we as a nation will not ultimately face such disasters. When they come to us, in numbers, will we be prepared? Will our rural economy, which has already been suffering, not suffer more?

I echo my honourable friend’s sentiment that we must be a leader. We may lose valuable resources, finance, time and effort in militating against these natural disasters when they occur. We must create a pre-emptive strategy to ensure that, for many years to come, such disasters are prevented. It is a scientifically proven fact that such disasters will be prevented if carbon emissions are reduced by 100 per cent. We will prevent further disruption to our already growing agricultural economy.

The solution is to support the development of a green economy through private sector investment, which will create jobs, generate wealth and provide confidence to the agricultural sector and the rural community, enabling a domino effect to help those industries that are in decline to grow as well. We must make sure that we do not over-regulate the existing private sector but instead build a country of trust and confidence. We can be certain that, one day, we will ensure that our young generations can enjoy the coastlines that have already been degrading, enjoy the beaches and make sure that our tourism industry experiences greater growth. To reduce carbon emissions by 100 per cent, we must go all the way with this.

David Odejayi: I first commend the Government on seeing the urgency and importance of acting on such a vital issue. I commend them for setting such a laudably ambitious target. I further urge them focus on multilateral efforts in combating climate change. We must reach an international consensus on this issue; otherwise our efforts as

individual nations will not be enough to give us a decisive change in the global warming that we face.

Furthermore, I would like the Government to focus on adapting to the climate change that we know is inevitable to a certain degree. Because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for such a long time, we know that in the coming decades we will face certain changes in our climate which will adversely affect us if we are not prepared. We will see hotter and drier summers and warmer and wetter winters. We need to be prepared for any consequences that may arise as a result.

I thank the Government for proposing targets for carbon emissions, but these cannot be our sole focus in looking at climate change.

Lisa Garvey: It has been proved as a scientific fact that the more greenhouse gases we put into the world, the more it will affect us. We should be leaders, improving our industry through reusable resources like solar and hydro-electricity. If we invest the future of future generations in profit, we will see more adverse effects. We have seen hurricanes in Japan. That will continue to happen. We should be the ones to change, and the rest of the world can follow us. We should lead them, not wait for someone else to do it. If we do not, who will?

I suggest we tell the rest of the world that we should lead by example; that we will do it and make the change. If we do not, no one will. Sea temperatures are rising, and the polar bears’ ice caps are melting. If we do not do anything, it will keep increasing. Personally, I have faith in us as human beings. We have 39 years to make a difference, and I believe that we can do it. Thirty years ago there was no internet, but look at us know. We are on Twitter and Facebook. We can connect with a touch in a second to people miles away. We can do it. As human beings, we can.

Hubert Remillard: Ladies and gentlemen, there is no denying that global warming is a massive threat not only to our society but to the world as a whole. However, we talk of being a leader. I ask you: how many countries listen to Japan on nuclear disarmament? How many countries listen to Norway on preaching peace?

I put it to you that we are debating the wrong issue. There will come a time—maybe it is now—for innovation to reduce our carbon footprint. Today, however, we must look after our own. A recent poll conducted by IPSOS/MORI prior to the British election asked how important climate change is to young people. In 2007, the figure was 17 per cent; when conducted recently, it was four per cent. We are facing huge unemployment in Commonwealthland. Our young people will not thank us in 2050 if they have been faced with no jobs when they were younger, carbon footprint or no. We must look after our own and not try to over-influence the world. We are not a massive nation of the West. We do not have the influence. We are 30 million strong. We must ensure that our borders are secure and that our young people have jobs that they can foster and that our country can continue to grow. Thank you very much.

Olga Stoutchilina: First, the Government should not govern by the theory of “Follow the people, for I am their leader”. We should be working together to make young people worried about the issues. We should be encouraging young people to participate in these debates as we are now.

We have to act in a rational and reasonable way. I will not be supporting the Motion. I support a carbon tax that transitions into a carbon trade scheme because I believe in markets. I believe in maintaining a viable economy. I believe in allowing business to adapt. I believe in the need for certainty.

I would also support and encourage any discussions about the correct system to employ for the carbon trade scheme. Over the years, we have seen a lot of occasions on which we both agree on what should be done but fail to agree on how, which is so important.

We must also remember not to let the best be the enemy of the good. Let us commit to work together to solve this issue that we all face as global citizens. Let us be realistic about the goals and set realistic targets: realistic goals that inspire innovation in the energy sector, not just planting trees to have negative reductions. Let us inspire a movement to a growing economy in society, not to closure of businesses that are so important for employment.

I challenge those proposing the amendments on the other side of the Chamber to inform the House of how the targets will be reached. How will we be reaching them by 2040? Thank you.

3 pm

Haris Azman: First, I offer some figures about our global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. In the UK, with the Climate Change Act, the Government have increased the reduction target to at least 80 per cent from the previous 60 per cent. In 2007, Japan unveiled its ambitious plan to cut global greenhouse gases by 50 per cent by 2050, including from the world’s biggest emitters, the United States and China. On the other hand, the European Union has targeted an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, to transform itself into a competitive low-carbon economy.

Is it feasible for Commonwealthland to reach the target of 50 per cent by 2050? I call upon the Government to strengthen their co-operation with the global community and international organisations to meet our target. There is only one Earth, and there are no national boundaries for the air. Even the most outstanding strategy would be meaningless unless all countries were actively participating in it. Even Commonwealthland cannot be compared with other developed countries in terms of investment in green technology. We can still work hand in hand to move towards a less carbon-and-fossil-fuel-dependent country. The Government must therefore strengthen enforcement of the legislation that we passed yesterday for all parties, including business and the private sector, to be more efficient in using energy and deliver the objectives for which CITES calls, in order for us to reach the target.

There is no guarantee that we can succeed. We can at least act ambitiously with proper road maps. We have a reason to hope that a 50 per cent reduction by 2050 can be achieved.

Elizabeth Anderson: I put it to this House that we have a duty to use the adversity of climate change to grow our economy and make our mark on the world. Commonwealthland is young enough to change its ways. The Motion for 2050 provides an ambitious but realistic timeframe. However, we have to act now to develop the skills that we need through our education system to enable the growth of decarbonised and low-carbon industries.

For promoting and nurturing our growing technology industry, which we know is one of our main strengths within Commonwealthland, we can create a haven for scientific leadership in this sector. We should be encouraging entrepreneurship to bring forward more companies which can help the public to develop the tools that it needs to change its behaviour. Only through the public’s behavioural change, and industry working with it, can we achieve this. We can then do what all Governments have always wanted: the Government, industry and the public working together to make their nation a better place.

Solomon Enilolobo: Fellow youth parliamentarians, we need to adjust how we are talking about this issue. It is not about why we should determine the level of our carbon emissions. We should be talking about a strategy, a road map we can follow to lead us to a place where we can decrease the level of carbon emissions in society as we need. If we are talking about employment and the economy, we do not want an economy where the young people following us will not enjoy those things we are enjoying.

There are some very deprived parts of Commonwealthland which are suffering. In the dry season they do not have clear water. The wells are dry. We cannot address only the economy. We must also face agriculture and all other things. Just as fellow youth parliamentarians have said, we must look at it. This is an opportunity for us to look inwards at how we, as a young economy, can use all the technology around us for our good. If we do so, we can look inwards at coming up with ways that not only encourage us to reduce emissions but also spur the Western world to action. They will look at a small nation and see that we are thinking ahead.

We are not going to leave it to them, but because they see us doing it they will be encouraged to do it as well. Do not let us look only at the economy, but also agriculture and unemployment; we must look at these issues. I ask those on the opposite Benches to give us their strategy. They must give us their road map. Let us see how they get from one step to the other. Let us see how they want to tackle this issue.

We cannot just keep on discussing this. We need a road map to let us know where we are going.

Stephen Marshall: It is of key importance to gain the individual’s support in this. The Government must therefore raise awareness of what benefits individuals can have.

Individuals are key. They can change consumer behaviour and, thus, companies will have to change their behaviour. That is one important factor.

Another factor is Government support for community actions, setting up community grass roots groups to create their own energy or other forces beneficial to the environment. People have to really see benefits before they want to change their minds. If they cannot see wind turbines out of their back window, or see themselves directly benefiting, they will not support it. We must ensure that individuals are constantly on board.

Finally, a lot of young graduates and experts are leaving this country for various reasons, and probably because we are still developing. However, we can lead the way by becoming a green economy. We would therefore have a strong export to give to the world. Let us kept the graduates here. Let us fund the different schools of research and universities in the country. We can do it—we just have to do it in the right places, with the right support at the right time.

There should be flexibility in the Bill. If Commonwealthland has a disastrous problem, like the flooding in Pakistan, they have to put money into reconstruction rather than technology. That is another point that we have to look at, because flexibility can reduce their input into the reduction of carbon emissions. Thank you.

Monica Farrugia: I am from Malta, from the Progressive Youth Alliance. Like some things in life—hopefully not all things—the way climate change works is definitely not fair. The smallest states emit the least carbon, but are effectively the ones to suffer the consequences most. I hail from Gozo, as I have already said, in the small state of the Republic of Malta. Geographical size has nothing to do with how effective a state can be on a global sphere. Only a few weeks ago, Prime Minister Cameron, who is in the same building as us, thanked the Maltese people for being a leading capital for humanitarian assistance in the Libyan crisis. However, in terms of climate change and its consequences, size does matter. Small states should be positively discriminated in the larger scheme of things, not to mention in terms of carbon taxes. The carbon trading efforts of the international community, including the Commonwealth, must give adequate financial and social assistance to them. As the principle of solidarity is applied, all this talk will lead to a situation in which, like never before, so much will be carried by so few. Thank you.

Hamza Kazni: I am from Redbridge Youth Council. It is not impossible to reduce carbon emissions by 2050. Just like my fellow youth parliamentarians have said, nothing is impossible, but we need to be in the right place at the right time. We need to do it because climate change is a big issue and it is happening now; there is a danger that the world could end in the next few years. We learnt in Science that half of London could be flooded in the next few years. We need to reduce carbon emissions by 100 per cent by 2050, and it is not impossible. In Commonwealthland, there will be opportunities for people to get jobs in other parts of the country. It is possible, but we need to be ambitious and go for it. Thank you.

Caroline Kaimenyi Karwitha: I stand here this afternoon to support this Motion. I am happy that so many of us are here today. This is recognition of the threat from climate change. It is serious, urgent and growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by future generations, so it is our duty to act boldly, swiftly and together as we seek to avoid consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe. Industrial processes, transportation fuels, residential and commercial activities, improper land use and biomass burning are some of the great emitters of carbon gases. However large or small, however wealthy or poor, no nation can escape the impact of climate change.

The security and stability of our nation, Commonwealthland, is in jeopardy as are our people, our prosperity, our health and our safety. The time to reverse this state is now. The problems that we are facing today are man-made and can be resolved by man. Creating awareness of the causes and effects of and solutions to climate change and investing in the restoration of our forests, ecosystems and river basins and in the development and use of renewable energy are some of the ways that we can use to reduce climate change. I support the Motion.

Alisha Ally: I am quite baffled by the temerity of some in this Chamber who do not support this Motion because I believe that a 100 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is ambitious but achievable. In Commonwealthland, we cannot afford not to be a leader in reducing our carbon emissions. Need I remind honourable colleagues that in 2007, at a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda, it was said that climate change,

“is a direct threat to the very survival of some Commonwealth countries”?

The last time I checked, Commonwealthland was part of the Commonwealth.

We need to be cognisant of what is going on in our global economy. We cannot be more compassionate to our private sector than we are to our people. If we are concerned that introducing a carbon trading scheme is going to push businesses out of our land, my Government are committed to offering entrepreneurs funding so that we can have our own businesses. We do not need those from foreign countries coming into our country when we can do it for ourselves. As Minister for Development, I say that my Government are committed to a dual approach to reducing carbon emissions. Not only do we have a carbon tax and a trading scheme, but we are going to look into the use of sustainable means. We are going to use our land and forests properly and encourage the sustainable development of our resources. We need to expand our agricultural produce. All this is in my Government’s policy. We are committed to the people of Commonwealthland. I beg honourable colleagues to support this Motion.

3.15 pm

Anna Chestnutt: Lord Speaker, I would like to point out that this Motion is unique in the sense that both parties agree, on the whole. There is one main difference that I would like to propose. The Government have proposed that we will reduce

emissions by 100 per cent by 2050 by relying heavily on the private sector. I feel that that is an ambitious Motion and in order to achieve it we need to smudge the lines between the private sector and the public sector and have a dual approach, investing heavily in green industry and trying with every resource that we have to make this aim a reality.

The Secretary of State articulately stated that we are a leader and not a follower, so it is important to invest in green industry, not wait for larger or western nations to do so. We must encourage our own domestic industries, which will employ the youth of tomorrow.

Youth unemployment has been cited as a very pertinent issue. To remain competitive in the world economy, we need to develop renewable energy resources and other countries will in turn invest in those industries. During this financially difficult time, the green industry remains one of the few industries certain to grow in the next 30 years. We need engineers, advertisers, factory workers, lawyers, gardeners, geologists, scientists; the list goes on. Thousands and thousands of young employees will benefit from our sizeable investment in the green industry.

Joshua Snape: Honourable friends, we have heard today a lot about this Bill. It is a great chance to reduce our carbon emissions. I commend that this climate tax on our emissions must be ring-fenced to promote growth. We must grow our way out of this problem by promoting growth within our green industries and seek to employ as many young people as possible. We must seek to reinvest the tax that will damage our business into the same businesses to promote growth.

Jayson Paul: Straight talk, unequivocal and necessary: carbon emissions are the leading cause of the drastic climate change phenomena that we see today. We are gambling with our future each day that we do not acknowledge that fact. We are responsible for our actions. I am not asking this honourable House merely as a Member but as a fellow human being. Do not turn a blind eye to this.

This debate on climate change has taken place over three years from the scientific perspective. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the NAS, the AAAS—some of the world's leading scientific organisations—have proved that in essence, drastic climate change is happening now, the time to act to stop it was yesterday and, if we do not change our act now, we will have no tomorrow.

The Leader of the Opposition and his Members seek to move the target date forward by 10 years and yet have put forward nothing tangible to support that measure. They do not understand that there is still work to be done in research and development as well as in changing public opinion.

Honourable House, the entire world rests on the cusp of a tipping point. We cannot see the edge of the precipice but it is there. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide, threaten nothing short of global anarchy. The members of the Independents who spoke earlier, said that they believed that we should not reduce our CO2 emissions and no more than a few seconds later, the Member said we

have a responsibility to our people. I agree with that part of his statement. We have a responsibility to our people: we have a responsibility for their lives, their security and their means of living. I thank the honourable House.

Lucy Radowicz: I stand in support of a significant reduction in carbon emissions in Commonwealthland by 2050, but not of the 100 per cent proposed. While this should be Commonwealthland’s ultimate goal, the economic sacrifices required would be too great. Commonwealthland has a unique population distribution, which provides an opportunity to address our carbon emissions significantly: it has a large youth population. In youth we are best able to learn new behaviours and change our current ones. This stands true for positive environmental action. We see this internationally in countries such as Australia, where there have been significant droughts in recent years and water is now viewed by the youth as a finite resource, which should be valued and preserved.

Education is the key to bringing about these changes. I look forward to seeing Commonwealthland’s curriculum integrating climate change awareness as we work towards emission reduction. However, it is also this youth population that needs protection. We see high youth unemployment in Commonwealthland. There is already unwillingness by employers to employ young workers, particularly those who are less skilled. The impact of a 100 per cent carbon emission reduction, which would need to be brought about by rapid change in businesses, would discourage them further from employing our young workers. What we need is a more gradual transition, which would allow practices in manufacturing and agriculture to change slowly without discouraging employers from employing our youth. Therefore, youth are the tool that will allow us to reduce our carbon emissions, but also a group that needs to be protected. The 100 per cent reduction by 2050 is too severe and, in the interests of today’s youth, I beg this House to reconsider.

Amy Robinson: Thank you Lord Speaker. It is my privilege to stand before you. Forgive my digression but I must acknowledge my mum and dad, who have raised me to be outspoken. As an Independent youth parliamentarian, I stand to speak against the Motion. I mean no disrespect to my fellow citizens of Commonwealthland and their concerns.

I hold the view that the planet has been changing for millions of years and will continue to change for millions of years. I fear that we humans now feel that we can control the planet to suit us. We feel that, as though using a television remote control, we can hit pause and halt the planet and Commonwealthland in its changes; and that, by cutting carbon emissions, Commonwealthland will stay the way that it is now for ever.

I have embraced the idea that the climate is changing and that we need to adapt. There are many pressing climate change issues, which are often put aside in favour of the carbon emission debate. Sustainable use of water, sustainable population growth and the gratuitous overuse of Commonwealthland’s limited resources need to be addressed. Cutting carbon emissions does not solve these, and I fear we have lost focus on what is vitally important.

My views on carbon emissions are unpopular. However, I know I represent many young people who are often confused by the wide variety of sources of information that are available, and young people who are bullied and labelled “deniers” if they dare to ask questions of popular scientific belief. However, they are members of the global community with a conscience. I ask youth parliamentarians not to forget that climate change is not just about reducing carbon emissions.

Martin Kakaire: Thank you Lord Speaker. I am about to put forward some facts that have been presented by Dr John Christie. According to what we know and the models that we follow, the climate models can be seen as a list of rules; when they try to predict the future, they follow a list of specific rules. Therefore, the results that we see on the hockey stick graph are not reliable. The growth in temperature, measured by the six satellites around our planet, is of one-tenth of a degree. Different thermometers in rural and urban areas give different results. Therefore, the results and numbers that we hear contradict each other and clash. The results that we see today are not reliable and should not be trusted.

Yes, CO2 is a pollutant but it is not as big a deal as economic growth rates in other countries such as the USA and this country. It is up to you guys whether we sit here and ramble about the situation or focus on the more important issues. However, we all know that the big companies, such the oil and gas companies, would not allow us to abolish their customers. They need that money and capital to pay taxes to our country so that we can maintain our economic position. If not, we could end up like America—as an AA country.

Hilya Ndinelago Joseph: Regarding the issue we have been discussing all day, I ask my honourable friend in the Opposition whether CO2 emissions are the only problem. They are not.

Turning to my own argument, is the target achievable? Yes. So far, we have the part of the Commonwealthland union which is also talking from the position of TEC, trying to maintain the technology to reduce carbon emissions. We also have power plants, reducing the weight of carbon emissions in the air by 80 to 90 per cent. Is it good to reduce it by 100 per cent? Yes. But why are we reducing it? Is that the only issue we should face now? I would balance it against other problems we have.

We currently have a problem in the economy. What is the point of reducing carbon emissions by 100 per cent and causing problems in other areas? The main problem is looking at everybody in this situation and making sure that everyone is comfortable with different things. Are carbon emissions a disaster? Yes, but we need to balance the issues and ensure that everything proceeds correctly according to time and for the benefit of different areas.

Lindokuhle Zwane: I stand in support of a significant reduction of carbon emissions by 2050; not 100 per cent, but at least 60 per cent by 2040. Climate change is undoubtedly the single greatest environmental issue of the 21st century, an unprecedented threat to mankind which can undermine sustainable development efforts, reduction of

poverty and sustained economic growth. As I speak, the Maldives and Commonwealthland are already suffering from coastal erosion. Saltwater intrusion contaminates drinking water and degrades farmland.

If atmospheric concentrations are not quickly reduced and temperature brought under control, rising seas could submerge Commonwealthland, including Commonwealth countries in low-lying coastal areas. At the same time, people are being displaced with no legal protection.

The countries that contribute the least to endangering the planet are among those which are affected the most. As we discuss and debate our global plan for sustainability, let us also remember the vulnerability of so many less developed and developing states. It is imperative that we take strong action against climate change immediately to protect Commonwealthland and Commonwealth countries. Our future depends on it.

I can see that the Opposition party is trying to make climate change a responsibility of the Government. We are trying to put it in our faces: we are its cause. Climate change does not discriminate; why should we? We should come up with policies and frameworks that we can follow on how to combat climate change and achieve these targets.

3.30 pm

Samuel Kalama: I stand here this afternoon to support the Motion on the reduction of carbon emissions by the year 2050—a timely and achievable objective. Climate change is a growing concern and there is a need as a Government to come up with measures that include the avoidance of environmental degradation and the banning of poisons. You must invest in renewable energy and by 2050 reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere, by when the temperature level in the atmosphere will have decreased.

It is important to understand that carbon emissions have done harm in most countries—both developed and developing. It is therefore important for all of us, whether we are in the developed of developing countries to join hands and fight this common enemy, climate change. By so doing, we will have achieved our target. Let us be positive and forward-thinking when it comes to reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. We will enhance sustainable development and future generations will also have the benefit of living in an environment that is conducive.

Francis Anyaegbu: I come from Nigeria and the Progressive Youth Alliance. I will say countless times that this Government on the other side lacks the initiative to actually lead. If the Agriculture Minister can come up and say “60 per cent by 2040” it shows that the House is in disarray and lacks a common agenda. I support the target of reducing emissions by 2050, but we on the opposite side have talked about 2040. I believe that all the problems leading to this aim have to be addressed. The Government for once have never mentioned the citizens who they are supposed to serve. They are talking about a carbon tax on businesses and the like, but the citizens will support the

agenda of any Government that have an initiative to lead. We are at a vital crossroads and, as the shadow Development Minister, I say that with the current agenda and a clear vision of what is needed we have not to stand alone but with development partners and put this agenda forward. I hereby call on the Government on the other side of the divide to help us in our quest to attain a greener Commonwealth by adopting a common agenda of pushing the target of achieving 100 per cent emission reductions back towards 2040. I call on you to accept our plan and support our proposal.

Kawsar Zaman: I am a young British Bangladeshi who lives in Tower Hamlets—not far from here—whose parents first emigrated to this country in the 1970s; I was born and brought up here. They were in search of a better life. I was on a fellowship in 2009 when I spent six weeks living and working in India. I lived in one of the most rural areas of India with a poor family who did not have a TV. That is the situation in which many of the developing countries find themselves in. Are we really saying to those countries that are developing, “You can’t develop”? We have had 150 years of development in the West. We have TV screens all across this room. We are using more cars than ever before. We have had the Kyoto protocol which the United States failed to sign up to. We have as much responsibility in the West as the Commonwealth to reduce carbon emissions, but it cannot be just an effort for the Commonwealth.

Improvements have already been made. If you look at the Commonwealth statistics, the facts state that people are recycling more than ever before. Those are challenges that members of the Commonwealth are taking themselves but it needs to be a collective effort with the United States, China, India and all the global economies together. As the honourable youth parliamentarian was saying earlier, there needs to be a road map to collectively fight this battle. The issue presented by the Government—the target to reduce emissions by 50 per cent in 50 years—is unrealistic. Although a Member of the opposition Benches I find myself also disagreeing with what the opposition Benches are calling for. A reduction by 2040 is somewhat losing the plot. We need to be realistic. All of us in this House agree that carbon emissions must be reduced. We need to work together effectively, in a UN and international framework, to fight this global evil. Thank you.

Elizabeth Murray: I will first express a concern. Attacks from the Opposition on our party have alleged disarray. However, my understanding is that this forum is for expressing opinions and sentiments about the problems of climate change and emissions targets, and not simply for party rhetoric.

One point has been consistently overlooked throughout the debate. The only way to meet emissions targets—whether for 100 per cent by 2040 or for less—is through motivating behavioural change. The only way to do this is by setting achievable and realistic targets. I suggest that 100 per cent by 2040 is simply unrealistic for a developing economy. I have heard idealistic sentiments about what we could do to lead the way by showing what is possible. I suggest that in economic terms, the target is not realistic for Commonwealthland. Underneath the political jargon, the goal remains the same: to motivate behavioural change. Unrealistic targets are not the way to do this.

Current political policy, which forces action through monetary disincentives such as carbon tax and emissions trading schemes, changes behaviour by making people unable to afford to engage in behaviours that increase carbon in the environment. People will turn on their heating less and drive their cars less because they cannot afford it. However, for long-term change to be effective—I am looking to 2100 and beyond, not just to 2050—there must be a shift in attitudes in parallel with forced economic behaviour, so that people act in these ways because they want to, because they want not to turn on their heating, and they want to drive their cars less, in order to protect the environment. An essential part of doing this is to set realistic and achievable targets. It is no good setting excessive targets if what we lack is realism.

Justine Kalembe: I rise to support the reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. I am proud to report that we in Uganda are already trying to do so. We are talking about 2050 because it will give the Government time to educate the population of Commonwealthland about the negative effects of carbon emissions. It will give us time to research and evolve, and will also encourage the use of low carbon and renewable resources.

My second point is about the imposition of taxes. These taxes will discourage the use of high carbon emission resources, and will help us invest more in renewable energy resources. I support the Motion. Thank you.

Samuel Mezec: I represent Jersey and I am also the shadow Foreign Affairs Minister for the Progressive Youth Alliance. I will start by thanking the Government. This is a fantastic initiative, which has my broad support. I am particularly pleased that the party opposite has suggested the carbon tax. However, I am surprised that the suggestion has come from the anti-spending, anti-tax party. I am very glad that they have momentarily adopted my party's centre-left values. Long may that continue.

I am also very pleased that, in earlier proceedings, my party's amendment to determine where the revenues from this tax will go was agreed. This is good news. The economic case against the carbon tax is strong. Companies could simply compensate themselves by raising prices, which would affect the poorest in our society most and would also reduce economic growth.

So our proposition, which has been accepted, will use these revenues to provide increased welfare support and will address this issue, and will ensure that there will be investment in renewable energy to help us to reach this target. It is on this basis that I will be supporting this Motion, and urge all my comrades on all sides of the House to support the Motion. While it may not be as ambitious as my party would like, having a target is better than having no target at all. So we should all vote for this Motion.

It is legitimate to share some of the concerns raised by my honourable friend from Jersey. However, I would also say that it is not good to go down his road of pessimism and “not my problem” attitude. That is very unhealthy, and we should be ignoring that.

While these initiatives are very positive, and I do welcome them, we must acknowledge that they will count for absolutely nothing if they are only unilateral measures. It does not matter what we do. If countries such as China and India continue to increase their carbon emissions, we can reduce ours by 100 per cent or even by 200 per cent—okay, it is impossible, but let us just say that we did it. But it would matter for nothing if China or India increased theirs by 5 per cent. I am asking the Government to put forward their Foreign Affairs Minister to make a statement on what exactly he is going to do internationally to encourage other countries to adopt the same things that we have done. I am very glad that Commonwealthland is going to be an example to the rest of the world. Thank you for putting forward this Motion.

Nathan Wyllie: Good afternoon. I am representing the CDP. I just wanted to raise some notes from earlier. You say you want to bring a carbon tax, but you have not really looked at the little man in the picture, the man who has a small business who runs one van, which is very old. It does create carbon, but he is struggling in these difficult times. How is this tax going to help his business survive, if he is going to have to fork out more money for another tax to pay for a van that he can barely afford and not have enough customers?

You also say you want the youths to help, but where is the government support? Again, you have to get away from climate change and look at the things like raising university fees, unemployment for youths and the rising cost in travel. Most youths will probably look at buying a car, because they find it is cheaper. Again, their carbon footprint will be increased, but what are the Government doing to help them with their travel costs?

June Lavatai: My fellow parliamentarians, reducing carbon emissions by 100 per cent in 2050 is feasible. Many fellow parliamentarians have mentioned that Commonwealthland is a developed nation. Yes, it is. Samoa is a pacific island, where they have already invested a lot in renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions. If small islands in the Pacific can do it, why not Commonwealthland? The country here can do it as well. My fellow young parliamentarians on the opposition side have talked about reducing carbon emissions by 100 per cent in 2040. Why don’t you explain how? Reducing carbon emissions by 100 per cent in 2050 is realistic; reducing by 100 per cent in 2040 is unrealistic. Let us stand for a change and lead by example. Let us be the ones of whom the younger generation can say, “That was my mother and father, that was my great-grandmother who actually stood up for a change”.

Unidentified Speaker: I wish to take this time to ask my fellow parliamentarians to forgive me if I seem to waffle, because this speech is not terribly practised. I wish to take the time to thank the Government and also the Opposition for proposing ideas that will help not only us but also the rest of the world. But I wish to take this time to touch on an idea raised by my fellow diaspora member. We need to think of ourselves first, before thinking about the rest of the world. It may sound selfish, but it is true.

The Opposition and the Government have spoken of cutting carbon emissions by 100 per cent, but you have not come up with sufficient ideas to help youths while cutting

carbon emissions. Therefore, instead of cutting carbon emissions before 2040 and 2050, I should like to ask for the time standard to be raised to 2070. I believe that in those 20 years, businesses will have developed and will be able to cope.

Will the Government please not take while forgetting to give? They will take from the businesses which are employing our youth and these businesses will go to other countries. Our youth will be left unemployed. Please take but also give to our youth who depend on these businesses for work. Otherwise, there will be the same kind of resistance and violence that has been witnessed by the coalition Government. They have acted naively by taking and not giving to our youth. Please, if the Government wish to take from businesses, they must not forget to give to the businesses from which they are taking.

3.45 pm

Damilola Olatuyi: I should like to greet all my learned friends and my fellow youth parliamentarians. I have a couple of simple questions to pose to the House today. How realistic are our aims to reduce carbon emissions if all it takes to stop the procedure from happening is one head of state of a big economic country who does not agree with our aim? What if the next American President is a climate change sceptic and does not agree? Do we go on without America? How do we proceed when we have nations that we, let us face it, depend on to be part of our goals? We all know the effect that individual administrations, prime ministerships and presidencies can have on the world. How do we do it if all it takes is one Prime Minister or leader of a nation of a big economy to say, “No. I am not interested in that. I would rather look at education” or “I would rather look at health.”? How do we reduce carbon emissions to zero if we do that?

Anam Khan: I am from CYP UK diaspora. I am against the Motion. We should be very hopeful and welcoming towards the challenges. At the same time, we should be realistic and practical. The coming decades will involve technology, which is multiplying day by day. Our factories and industries are running on non-renewable resources. For a carbon-neutral Commonwealthland, you need renewable resources of energy. Until now we are struggling to find a reliable source.

Research is still needed to be done. Factories, machineries and vehicles need to be replaced and it all costs money. At the end of the day, it is us who are paying for all this. The people are paying for all these mutations. Commonwealthland is one of those countries where a large population lives on the poverty line and does not even manage to earn £20 per month, making this ambitious goal impracticable.

Ariff Azlan Adnan: I am from Malaysia with the diaspora parliamentarians. So far we in this House recognise that there is a problem with unemployment and that we need to compromise as regards having to have green energy. With the Government putting forward the commitment of money for providing a green and better life in Commonwealthland, this is the perfect time to urge the Government to call back all the skilled workers. We still face the migration of skilled workers who are leaving and the

problem of unskilled workers in our country. To begin with, we need to solve that problem.

I think that the 2040 target is not realistic. But the whole idea of a gradual reduction—30 per cent, 40 per cent—is good because we need to adapt. At the end of the day, we are still a developing nation and we need that sort of leeway in order to provide growth for our country.

Vanessa Seth: Let all Commonwealthland unite in the fight for a realistic figure—that is, 100 per cent by 2050. It is a tough fight, so why the insistence that we achieve such targets by 2040? It is high time that we stopped thinking within the box and started thinking long-term about how future generations can live in a healthy and sustainable environment.

I come from a small country that is greatly affected by the carbon emissions of the developed lands. I believe that Commonwealthland should be the leader, and should be the first to reduce our emissions by 100 per cent by 2050. By saving our country, we will be saving our world.

Mohamed Naahee Naseem: I support the Motion because I believe the people from the smaller island nations and from nations that are under the direct threat of climate change also have the right to co-exist with us on our planet. The pessimists would rush to say that what we are discussing is ridiculous, but the realistic truth is that this is happening. Climate change is real. It is time to wake up—climate change is going to happen if we keep ignoring it. If we allow global temperatures to rise by just two degrees, that could mean disaster. Countries like the Maldives and Samoa could disappear from the map. We need to act now. We are not in a position to cut a deal with Mother Nature. We cannot negotiate with the laws of physics.

To the world, Commonwealthland may be just one single country, and we may be just one, but we need to be become leaders rather than followers. We need to lead by example and show the world that we care about those people who are under direct threat and might potentially be environmental refugees. Let us all join together, set out our differences, think mutually and agree that we need to pass this Motion. We need to achieve the 100 per cent target in 2050. Who is with me?

Wangu Mureithi: We caused CO2 emissions to rise, so obviously we can reverse that. We should be investing our money and resources into green industry to finding new ways to generate power. We should educate our citizens in climate control so that they know the importance of reversing it, and equip them in sufficient ways to survive if or when the carbon tax comes in. That way we will have secured a future for our children, and islands like Samoa and the Maldives will not sink.

The attitude of waiting for more developed countries to change is lazy. We should lead by being the first ones to change. And we should ask ourselves why they are more developed than us. Is it because they use more carbon than us? Also, how else will we

support the small man? We should remember the small man in all this, and how the change in carbon emissions will affect him.

Jesal Sheta: I am from CDP. I would like to thank you for giving me this chance to speak. After hearing all the comments, I would like to give my personal view in this debate. We need a balance between renewable and non-renewable energy because if one fails then we can rely on the other, as we have seen in Libya, which is a fuel-producing country, but which is now war-torn. In the UK, fuel prices have definitely soared. If, when disasters like Libya strike and fuel prices go up, there were non-renewable energy in the UK that fuelled cars, we would have that backup. I think we need a balance between renewable and non-renewable energy. The House needs to come to some kind of agreement; we need to say that we need more of a renewable and non-renewable balance because if one fails we can always rely on the other. That would preserve nature and the Earth for our children—not their children—to the end of time.

Messeh Kamara: I greet you all in the spirit of humanity and high morality. I am from the Commonwealth diaspora, from Sierra Leone. I have been persuaded to intervene on the premise of what my learned and noble colleague said about the statistical extrapolation of the calculations of science, and so on. I am not sure we are really here for this. It is a reality that we have to accept. Let us forget about what the scientists say. The facts are clear. We do not need to ask questions.

My point is why do we need a Bill? Why do we need to tell people how to live their lives? Climate change is about us. If we behave well, there will be no need to create laws. So the responsibility is on us as young people, as the Commonwealthland community, to see this as a matter of urgency. We need to act; we need to show the world that we are serious about reducing carbon emissions. It is a simple process. We just need to change our attitude. It is not just about us as politicians—although we are good at delivering good speeches and giving very nice talks, we need action—but it is about grasping the people in the community and getting down to making it a better place for ourselves and our children’s children.

Judith Quist: I would like to greet every one. I am from CDP. I am against the Motion. For us to do this, we will have to put money into it, when the money could go somewhere else. We are part of Commonwealthland, but we come from different countries and we have different problems. So if the UK puts money into reducing carbon dioxide, when we have other problems like unemployment, emissions might reduce but then we might have riots, as we had the other day, so there is no point. If certain countries are under great threat, then they should put more money from their country into reducing emissions and we can deal with our own issues. Obviously, we will not ignore the situation because we recycle—some people are fined for not recycling—but we can do other things to progress the situation and help it. We do not need to set a target and put pressure, which we cannot deal with, on ourselves.

Dwynel Davis: I am from the British Virgin Islands. In the words of Dr NK Menon,

“The primary responsibility of a government is to protect its citizens and care for them”.

Most arguments in favour climate change maintain that all human activities have a direct result in climate change, the same activities that we depend on for our survival. However, on the contrary, many scientists believe—according to the American policy—that there is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause, or in the foreseeable future cause, a catastrophic heating of the atmosphere and disruption of the climate. Therefore, I maintain that in Commonwealthland at this time, climate change is not a priority.

We have other matters of concern. We need to concentrate on the environment and the implementation of measures on how to preserve and protect it. We need to focus on health and how to improve our healthcare system. Lastly, we need to focus on education for the betterment of our citizens. The environment is one of our greatest resources. Everyone wants to reach a solution but a solution is complicated and we focus a lot on the pollution from cars. However, if you look around, you will realise that we have a high degree of garbage littering our roadsides or sewage running into the rivers and seas. We definitely need to take these measures into consideration because our coastline is degrading. Where the coastline in Commonwealthland has already begun to degrade, my colleagues may attribute it to climate change, but I maintain that pollution is a major contributing factor to the degradation of the coastline.

The biggest asset we have is our health. How can we focus on limiting greenhouse gas emissions when our universal healthcare system is in poor shape? We need to monitor our health; we need to look at our mortality rate and that is why I stand in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

4 pm

Phillippa Christie: I am Pippa Christie, Commonwealth Youth Parliament representative for the Falkland Islands. The targets proposed are indeed aspirational, and I am not convinced that Commonwealthland will be able to achieve them. Some major world powers may not come with us if we seek to follow these targets, but this cannot be an excuse for inaction. If we use it as an excuse for inaction, other countries will follow, we will get nowhere and our Earth will not be what we need it to be for future generations.

This global journey can start with smaller countries’ small steps. Commonwealthland is already a leader in climate change. We have been signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change from the outset and we have succeeded in reaching our targets to date. We have a commitment to transferring to renewable energy sources. Citizens already have an awareness of climate change, and recycling is common. These are foundations upon which we can build a very strong strategy, but I am not convinced that we have a strong strategy at the moment. We need a strategy that has depth, and we need clear, tangible support from all sectors and partners at home and abroad. Without these aspirational targets, we risk becoming a laggard rather than a leader; we risk becoming uncompetitive with our neighbours, which would be to the

detriment of our quality of life and our citizens. We would be failing as a Government if that were to happen.

Unidentified Speaker: Thank you, Lord Speaker. I represent the Commonwealth Diaspora. We cannot ignore the fact that fossil fuels will eventually run out. Our task is very ambitious, but it is vital, practical and realistic. Whether or not we reduce carbon emissions by 100 per cent by 2050, fossil fuels will by force have gone, so we need to act now. We need to act quickly. We need to stop being so dependent on those fuels and look for greener alternatives. We need to be able to function without them.

Raphael Oyelade: I am part of the CDP. I do not oppose the Bill, but the Government have not answered all my questions. First, we are a nation that has free education up to the age of 16, yet it is not compulsory. We are a nation that does not have a universal immunisation programme. This Parliament’s relationship with the media is not positive. The media reflect what the people think of us. How do we then expect to create the motivation to change behaviour if we do not create a relationship with our own people?

The Bill states that 80 per cent of the net reductions should be made domestically. Where does this end? Are we talking simply about transportation and electricity, or do we mean the industries that are creating and polluting in order to give our people all the amenities that they are used to?

Our nation’s imports are greater than its exports; we favour imports. That means that we are not reducing the carbon emissions produced by other countries because we still contribute to them. Many of our road networks are major arteries for other countries. Those companies may not have a base in our country, but they still pass through it. Lorries create incredible levels of emissions. If they pass along our roads, they are still our responsibility. Are they taxed also?

I make it clear that I do not oppose the Bill. However, I shall oppose it if we enter a fool’s errand and if our research and insight do not show Commonwealthland’s entire contribution to emissions.

Kondwani Namagowa: Lord Speaker, I am Minister for Foreign Affairs and am a representative for Malawi.

Having listened to the points presented by my fellow parliamentarians, I realise that many of their two-minute speeches have been, “No, no, no” to the Government’s proposals. My take on the Climate Change Bill is that the Opposition are derailing the agenda of the day because of their political ambitions to get back into government. Much though they might agree with our proposal, they lack the sense of responsibility to be constructive in helping the Government to achieve these goals for the benefit of us all.

Reducing carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 is fully supported. For future generations, the issue of natural disasters will be a thing of the past. As we are in an economic crisis already, existing resources had better be used for development activities rather than rebuilding after such situations.

My Government believe in working with others. As the Government in power, we know that the Opposition’s input would greatly help. The 2040 proposal puts pressure on the Government, as it incorporates other social, political and economic elements. I support the Motion.

The Lord Speaker: The last question will go to the Cross-Benchers.

Ben Mallon: Thank you, Lord Speaker. I am an Independent from Northern Ireland.

Once again we see scaremongering from the Government and from the Opposition. As a nation, we have many far more important issues to worry about, such as high unemployment, health and educational well-being. The targets proposed by the Government are ludicrous and an absolute farce. If the Government want to be taken seriously, they should propose something that is realistic.

The Lord Speaker: Honourable friends and colleagues, I am afraid that we have come to the end of Question Time. I congratulate you all on your sustained and well researched arguments. However, we must now come to closing speeches. I call on the Secretary of State for the Environment, Shahad Qadir Ali, to speak to the Motion.

Shahad Qadir Ali: Lord Speaker, honourable Prime Minister, honourable Leader of the Opposition and my honourable youth parliamentarians, I am a Young Democrat Party representative for Trinidad and Tobago.

Today, we have heard an extensive debate on climate change. We have collectively understood that there is a distinct difference between a climatic change as a natural process and one that occurs quickly because of human interference. We have all recognised that Commonwealthland faces huge rates of pollution, coastal degradation and great vulnerability to the effects of climate change.

The Opposition have suggested that we should reduce our carbon emissions by 100 per cent by 2040. That is a 10-year difference, which would infringe on our research and development and thus affect our framework to achieve our goal of a 100 per cent reduction by 2050. Some honourable Members from other parties have suggested scientific projections of carbon emissions in the future, but most of those scientific projections have been made on current trends without taking into consideration technological advancements and the expansion of green technologies. With a vast base of information and knowledge, feasible growth is the only way forward.

Throughout our proceedings, most of my honourable colleagues have used the term “climate change” very loosely. Climate change is a generic term and its many subdivisions deserve careful attention. Issues of global warming, emissions of greenhouse gases, sea temperatures, sea levels, increasing land and air temperatures and a disproportionate distribution of weather patterns leading to a very unstable climate must all be individually addressed.

Our Government support the development of a green economy through the private sector. We have been promoting the concept of corporate socio-environmental responsibility, and many businesses are ready to act responsibly in order to please their environmentally sensitive customers. In exercising their corporate social responsibility, these companies can open up employment opportunities while exercising their corporate social responsibility by investing in environmental initiatives.

Do we believe that we can reduce our carbon emissions by 100 per cent by 2050 through efficient communication with a private sector that is willing to act responsibly for their adverse environmental actions through carbon taxation and carbon trading? We believe 100 per cent that that is a possibility. Insurance companies that lose millions after natural disasters are now willing to invest their money in environmental initiatives to mitigate the effects of climate change. Our Government have every intention of expanding our technological services and implementing energy efficiency within these private companies. We have expressed our interest in renewable energies and our intended expansion of our agricultural industry to invest in biofuels. This will include, but is not limited to, providing heat, lighting and power.

The changes that we must make will not happen overnight. They will definitely take some time. However, with proper communication, education and implementation, and by working through the private sector, the goal can be realistic with a collective and democratic approach. I strongly recommend that honourable youth parliamentarians should have some faith and set some feasible yet stringent goals. I implore them to vote for the Motion to reduce our carbon emissions by 100 per cent by the year 2050.

4.15 pm

Heather Maseko: Honourable parliamentarians would all agree with me that climate change is non-negotiable and that no one gambles with their own lives. It is an issue of survival. All sides of this House would also agree that climate change poses a threat not only to attaining the MDGs but to sustaining the economic growth and development that were attained during the years of our reign. Climate change has not been given the urgency that it deserves, taking into account the effects that it has on our leading sectors such as agriculture, trade and industry, health and energy—all important in our economy.

The proposed Motion has little substance and does not fully deliver a response to climate change in Comnonwealthland. I therefore concur with the Leader of the Opposition in his opening speech in maintaining that emissions targets should be kept as they are but by the year 2040, not 2050. This will mean that we will have an emissions target of 40 per cent in 2020, 30 per cent in 2030 and 20 per cent in 2040.

In addition, Lord Speaker and honourable parliamentarians, it has to be stressed that even if we cut our emissions today, or even by 2040, by 100 per cent, carbon will still remain in the atmosphere until 2140. This honourable House needs to know that carbon has a lifetime of no less than 100 years. That means that we will still need to have drastic adaptation measures even after 2040 and 2050, as I suggest. Honourable

parliamentarians, among other things I realise that this Motion is narrow and does not consider other options that are set by international conventions, as in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol. We will look at climate change not only affecting the Commonwealthland but also other countries. We need to consider initiatives such as the community forestry policy, which looks at land use change and forestry, the Emission Reduction Unit and the Clean Development Mechanism, and also focus on sustaining our livelihoods.

Lord Speaker and honourable parliamentarians, climate change that is happening now will have adverse effects and costs in the near future, thereby undermining our support for sustainable development. Honourable parliamentarians will agree with me that with substantial investment in renewable energy and by favouring adaptation and mitigation programmes we will ensure that we attain the emissions reductions that have been proposed by the Progressive Youth Alliance.

The Commonwealth’s bread basket sector is agriculture, which is already facing challenges brought about by the effects of climate change. I was surprised when the Minister of Agriculture called for a 60 per cent reduction by 2040. I thought it was a little ridiculous. We in Commonwealthland are one of the nations with coastlines, such as the Maldives, and we need to take drastic measures as they are being threatened by sea levels. Yes, Lord Speaker and honourable parliamentarians, we are the leaders and we are ambitious. We are also looking at the long-term effects. We will do everything to ensure that we survive after 2040 and have a chance to meet here in 2050. Of course, we might not be there after all.

Lord Speaker and honourable parliamentarians, we note that the differences that we have with the Government on the Motion are small. We are a constructive party and we will vote for the Motion. However, we still stress and maintain that the cuts should be done earlier if we are really to combat climate change and achieve economic growth. Honourable Speaker, what we have witnessed here is a view that was popular with no one but the Government. Despite that, we also sadly regret the position that has been taken by the members of the opposition as we feel that their measures are even worse and not viable.

In conclusion, Lord Speaker and honourable members, our party is set to introduce radical reforms, policies and ambitious targets that will ensure economic growth. In addition, the government’s approach in involving the public sector needs to be reversed. We need to look at public participation since climate change also involves behavioural change. Thank you, honourable parliamentarians.

The Lord Speaker: Honourable friends and colleagues, we now come to the vote. As I am sure you have been briefed, there will be two votes—one for Contents and one for Not-Contents—by show of hands, which the doorkeepers will count.

You can put your hands down now, in case you are getting tired!

Division on the Motion:

“That this House believes that Commonwealthland should reduce its carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050”

Contents 64; Not-Contents 41.

Motion agreed.

The Lord Speaker: The Contents have it. Congratulations!

Thank you all so much for a really, really interesting series of arguments. I was a little bit surprised by the outcome, but there you go. I thought that most of you were trying to say that the Motion was not quite realistic, although you agree with the principle involved, but the debate was wonderfully argued. I hope that those of you on the government side who proposed the Motion are well satisfied with the result.

I now call briefly upon our distinguished visitors—MPs and a representative from the House of Lords—to say a few words about who they are, what areas they represent and what they have done particularly in their respective jobs.

Pauline Latham (Mid-Derbyshire) (Con): I am the Conservative Member of Parliament for Mid-Derbyshire, which is right in the middle of England. This is my first term in Parliament—I came in a year ago last May. My particular interest, which is why I am here, is international development. I am on the International Development Select Committee, which gives me the opportunity to visit many of the places that you have come from.

It has been very interesting to hear the passion with which you have argued your case. I hope that those of you who would like a parliamentary career will continue with it, because it is the best job in the world. I particularly hope that the women who are here today will take it forward, because we definitely need more women in all Parliaments, especially the British one.

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): My Lord Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and heroes of the coming capitalist revolution, this has been wonderful! I am the Conservative Member of Parliament for Wycombe, which is in Buckinghamshire, just up the M40. I am also director of something called the Cobden Centre after Richard Cobden. Some of you may have spotted that he is a Liberal. I am in the Conservative Party because I am a classical liberal. Funny old world. It is wonderful to be here. I began to be interested in politics only four years ago; I am very new to it. I am an aerospace and software engineer by profession, so it has been particularly interesting to listen to all of you, so talented in politics so early. We have heard speeches of talent and authority, with some brilliant rhetoric. I will not single out anybody in particular, but I can well imagine a couple of people leading your nation, in 20 or 30 years’ time, after my career has failed spectacularly, when I will be watching from—I will not name any countries! It has been really encouraging. Very well done indeed, all of you.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am the former Attorney-General. I have been in this House since 1997. I hope that none of you can do maths, because I am really only 21!

I was the first woman in 700 years to be appointed Her Majesty's Attorney-General, because we do things very quickly in this country. We definitely need more parliamentarians. I do not know whether some of you noticed but I had the privilege to come in with some other guests: there was Her Royal Highness the Princess of Malaysia—she came in just as the Malaysian candidate spoke, so am afraid your name has been taken—and there was Toyin Saraki, who is the First Lady of the Kwara region in Nigeria. They were blown away by the wonder of listening to all of you. Our future will depend on the quality of the politicians who we are able to create in the next generation if our world is to be safe. I can tell you that from the old crones on this side.

Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): I am the recently elected Conservative Member of Parliament for Bournemouth West. The reason that I wanted to be here and have not gone back to my constituency, as I would normally do on a Friday, is that I wanted to show the support of Members of the House of Commons for you and what you are doing. In 1922, a man called JM Barrie, a playwright and novelist, the author of Peter Pan, made his one and only public speech as rector at St Andrews University in the aftermath of the First World War. He addressed those young people and told them that, in his judgment, the time had come for young people to rise up and demand equality in decision-making—a partnership with their elders and betters—because the decisions that we take in these Parliaments will affect your lives in the years ahead more than they will ours and you should have that equal voice. As you walk around this building as you leave today, you will see great figures from Britain's past immortalised in granite and marble. In their day, in their time, they were, as we are now, flesh and blood confronting real decisions. As you leave through St Stephen’s Hall, on the right hand side you will see a statue of Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke said that life was a partnership, in all science, all art and all things, and that because of the nature of that partnership it could never be achieved in one generation. It could never even be achieved in many generations. It was in fact a partnership between those of us who are here living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born. You have shown today your generation will be equal to the challenge of that partnership. Well done.

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): I am the Member of Parliament for Dunfermline and West Fife. I thank the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association staff—Andrew Tuggey and everyone who works with him— for the fantastic event that they have pulled together this afternoon. I am very nervous about the quality of a number of the UK speakers and urge them to give up politics now because they could be far better than I am. It is phenomenal to see such confidence to deliver a speech. In some ways, it is easier to speak for 35 minutes than it is to speak for two minutes. Just to prove that, I will finally sit down.

4.30 pm

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, which is just outside, but not in, the city of Glasgow in Scotland.

It is a great honour to be here not only to hear the very high quality of debate and contributions that we have listened to this afternoon but, if I may say so on behalf of at least the four of us sitting at the front, because this is probably the only time for now—and, for some of us, for ever—that we will get to sit on these Benches. It is great to be here and to hear the standard of debate. As Conor Burns said, it has been a very impressive afternoon.

I join Pauline Latham in imploring those of you who are interested in politics to keep up that interest. There are so many issues that will affect people’s lives into the future, and it is very important that young people are involved and engaged so that we end this myth that young people are not interested in politics. Politics is about what happens in your lives, in your communities and in the society that we all live in. I pay great tribute to all of you who have been involved in today’s debate.

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): Delegates! Citizens! The future! Thank you for allowing me to hear your deliberations this afternoon. When my good friend and comrade Tom Greatrex says that we will not sit in these Benches again, how right he is in my case—this is where the Archbishop of Canterbury sits, and it would come as a considerable shock to my parish priest and certainly to the worldwide Anglican communion.

The honourable lady, the delegate from Malawi Greater, says that you will return in 2050. May you do so, but I will then be a distant shade, a shimmering spirit, a spectre haunting these glorious gilded halls. And I, an insubstantial phantom, will peer over and listen to what I know will be some of the finest rhetoric and the greatest passion—the strength and the power of the future. That will be you coming into flower, into achievement.

As Tom Greatrex said, people say that young people nowadays are not interested in politics, but politics, my friends, is interested in you. Nothing that we do in this place will not affect you—and I have to say that, if anyone in my hearing calls Baroness Scotland a crone, I will, as we say in west London, “take them out and do their legs”—but you are the future.

What so impressed me today was that mixture. You had the idealism. Some of your ideas were bonkers—as they should be. If you cannot dream the impossible, look over the horizon and sing from the Julia Gillard song-book, you are just not doing it right. You need to have that dream, that passion and that imagination, but season it with the pragmatism that you have all showed so well today.

In times to come, you will see this wonderful place on television. I want you always to think that one Friday afternoon in September you sat here as of right, as Members of the Commonwealth that is represented so strongly in this building, and you dominated their Lordships’ House. You did it, and, comrades, do it again! [Applause.]

The Lord Speaker: Well, what a finale!

I thank the parliamentarians who have stayed the course, and I am truly grateful that they did so. I thank everyone who has been involved in the organisation of this amazing event. There are an awful lot of people who have worked in the backrooms: the CPA; the doorkeepers, who have stayed on a Friday; the clerks; and, indeed, everyone who has been involved.

Most of all, I offer my profound thanks to all of you. I know that you have worked incredibly hard—you have not had a shopping trip or a jolly—and, indeed, that showed in the arguments that you produced. I have learnt a huge amount this afternoon, and I thank you for that.

I will just repeat what has been said by our parliamentarians: keep at it, persist, go on. You have lots to offer. The world is a difficult, complicated and troubled place, but you can offer something. You can do politics. We would very much like you to come back again soon and certainly for the Youth Parliament to be reconvened in the not-too-distant future. I very much hope to meet you again, and as I do, you will be rising up. As some of our parliamentarians have said, not in 20 or 30 years’ time—“In 20 minutes’ time”, I hear someone say—but in 10 years’ time, some of you will be among the leaders of your countries and you will have an extremely important task to carry out, which is to ensure governance and adherence to the millennium development goals.

Thank you again. I have had a very wonderful afternoon. I hope that you have an enjoyable evening before you all return to your countries tomorrow.

Youth Parliament adjourned at 4.35 pm.