Blair faces revolt over C02 targets
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Tony Blair faces a major Commons revolt over his refusal to commit Britain to annual cuts in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
The opposition parties and more than 200 Labour MPs have demanded that the Climate Change Bill, which will be announced in this week's Queen's Speech, include a promise to reduce C02 emissions by 3 per cent each year.
But the Prime Minister is resisting the demands, insisting that annual legally-binding targets would be too inflexible. He argues that without "pretty heavy" tax measures an unusually cold winter would scupper hopes of achieving that year's planned reduction.
Without a compromise, the Government looks certain to trigger a rebellion on a scale that could wipe out its majority.
Ministers have agreed a Bill that will set out the aim of cutting C02 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, but critics argue that it can only be achieved by the discipline of annual targets. Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, who tabled the motion demanding yearly reductions, said Mr Blair's preference for targets over a longer period such as 10 years was a mistake. It could mean action being delayed until the seventh or eighth year and then the target being abandoned as impossible.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments