Talk:United Kingdom Climate Change Bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

A story relating to the article United Kingdom Climate Change Bill (or a previous version of it) was included in the news section of the Energy Portal. Please consider updating the portal news with any major developments on this topic.

There's a problem with the link regarding draft laws. The draft law page redirects to conscription (a misunderstanding of the term 'draft law') Guessmyname (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Bill (proposed law). Rich257 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely there must be some criticism for this bill! I've already heard a few interviews with some labour MP's who are against it (before anyone says it - no I'm not thinking about the rebels who are going to vote against nuclear reform) - TJ 17:00 GMT 14/03/07

This article is one-sided, take for instance Jeremy Paxmans NewsNight interview with David Miliband of March 13 2007:

• Miliband had to concede that earlier goals of 20% reduction in emissions by 2010 were not met
• Miliband had to concede that the economy would be damaged
• Miliband had to concede that 50% of emissions reductions can be purchased from poor developing countries
• Miliband was unable to explain how the target of 60% in 2050 was reached (why not 80%)

V8rik 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The article reflects what is known as of now. There is plenty of criticism mentioned - i.e. that the Bill doesn't go far enough. If you mean opposition to the Bill, there doesn't seem to be too much so far - though I'm sure that will change in due course.

I've just looked at the Web sites of all the political parties that fought the 2005 General election (except those with no external links) the only party opposing the Bill is UKIP. So far as I could identify, there are (as of today) no other obvious or clear statements in favour or against the Bill from any of the other parties, except some other views in favour which I've just added.

Re Paxman, which I didn't see:

• Miliband had to concede that earlier goals of 20% reduction in emissions by 2010 were not met

That does seem likely to be the case. That seems to be one of the motivations for the other parties in supporting the Bill - so that the subject is taken more seriously, and so that the Government is held to account if targets aren't met.

• Miliband had to concede that the economy would be damaged

Among the political parties, only UKIP seem to share this view. The CBI & TUC don't seem concerned by this.

• Miliband had to concede that 50% of emissions reductions can be purchased from poor developing countries

The Bill talks about cutting emissions, not buying carbon credits, so not having seen the program I'm not sure how this fits into the picture.

• Miliband was unable to explain how the target of 60% in 2050 was reached (why not 80%)

The Government accepted the 60% figure recommended in 2000 by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, as mentioned in the article. I guess Miliband didn't know that - or perhaps he couldn't explain why the Royal Commission recommended 60%? Will add something to the article to explain this one, as it's a key point.

Gralo 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year linking

I have removed the wikilinks on years alone because this is in general not very useful and the article has many other more useful links, and it's best not to over link it. The manual of style on partial dates allows editors' discretion on this. If someone else thinks they really should be linked that's fine. Rich257 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)