Confusion in the House of Lords

The House of Lords debated the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and aviation yesterday.

Lord Woolmer, the poor fool, who'd clearly tumbled from a rather boozy Members' Club lunch to introduce the Committee Report manages some tremendous internal inconsistencies. Compare, for instance:

"There is no case for demonising aviation and aviation emissions; they are not a current threat to tackling climate change."

with his earlier statement:

"If aviation emissions continue to grow by 3 per cent a year for 40 years, they will triple. If the growth is 4 per cent a year, they will increase by 450 per cent." It will be a "very significant [problem] by 2050."

In other words, aviation is going to be a serious problem, but as its not a problem right now, there's no reason to do anything about it now. It's as though the Government's climate change policy is being modelled on the emergency procedure from the Titanic:

"We've analysed the time of year, our expected route, increase in ice flow, etc etc and can clearly demonstrate a high probability of hitting an iceberg at 11:40, April 14th. However, there will be 13 days of uninterupted sailing, and it seems a pity to restrict the number of deckchairs to accomodate some extra lifeboats which we aren't going to need for almost two weeks."

Not all of the Peers were suffering from an overdose of sherry. Baroness McIntosh makes some incisive comments, and Lord Redesdale reveals himself to be a card-carrying member of Earth First!:

"The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned the prize on offer from Mr Richard Branson. Flying pigs may as well be on offer, because we do not have such wonderful technology around the corner."

But unfortunately Lord Woolmer, perhaps more sober now, gets to have the final say, describing the anti-aviation arguments as:

"the true voice of old sackcloth and hair-shirt Liberalism saying that leisure air travel was not an economic necessity and could be priced out or stopped."

While the environmental lobby recovers from that stinging rebuke, perhaps we should be investing in lifeboats. If this debate is anything to go by, there's going to be a huge demand for them in years to come...