is living in poverty and how the face of poverty has changed since the economic downturn and how it is measured. we'll talk about federal poverty related programs, how much the cost, and their efficacy in reducing poverty. we will hear about one of the community programs designed to help fight poverty and how they partner with the government. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> the head of the american association of university professors says that tenure and academic freedom are in jeopardy and need to be protected. >> tenure creates an atmosphere on campus for people can speak freely, not just in their teaching, but also in terms of university governance. if you don't like a proposal that the board of trustees makes, you have to be able to speak freely about it. administrators should be able to do that as well. that shared governance speech as part of what academic freedom protect. without that, you don't have the

expertise of the faculty available to you. >> cary nels, sunday night on "q&a". >> american citizens forced from their homes, no trials, no charges. for 10-year-old norman minetta, this internment camp was home. almost 70 years later, hear his story on c-span3. on american artifacts, export 19th century america through its heart, inventions, and discoveries come -- from oral histories. in 1973, elizabeth holtzman became the youngest woman ever elected to congress. one year later she was voting to impeach president. look for the complete weekend schedule and at c-span.org

/history. >> earlier this month, about 100 members of the british commonwealth youth parliament, ages 18 to 29, gathered in the house of lords for a debate on climate change. they are from the commonwealth nations, including australia, kenya, malaysia, and trinidad- tobago. the speaker of the house of lords presided over the two-hour debate. >> i am delighted to welcome you here to the chamber of the house of lords. e chamber of the house of lords. many of you i will have met before, yesterday and the day before. but not all of you. and so this is a good occasion for me to see you all together. and i do so warmly welcome you. now, i think you all know what it is we're here for. but you'll for give me if i perhaps go over it a little bit more. i am frances d' souza.

i was recently elected speaker of the house of lords. my work today is to moderate the debate. but the work is going to be all yours. i want to reiterate that we will have two speakers, the prime minister leading the opposition to speak for and against -- don't forget what motion is. but this house really is that the commonwealth land should reduce its carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050. then we will open it up as a free for all so that you will all have a chance to put your views and have a comment and you can ask questions of the speakers. the most important thing, the most important thing, is that you all keep to time. and i think you'll recognize that reason for that is because it allows everyone a fair chance to express their view. i'm absolutely delighted we have here representatives from the house of commons who i extremely welcome. and i rather hope that they will be here at the end of the session so that they can perhaps

say a few words about who they are and what they do and who they represent. and we also have a representative from the house of lords who will be familiar to all of you. thank you very much for coming. so without more adieu, let me invite the opening remarks first of all from the prime minister, young democratic party who will speak for the motion. >> thank you, lord speaker. fellow youth par lemt aryans, 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 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 diverse fire 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 lead the world into a carbon-neutral future. now, many of you will see the 100% 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 combatting climate change. make no mistake, this is not an

easy task. but neither was achieving our independence and 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 many technology sources which 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 commonwealth land for the decades ahead. is it ambitious? yes. is it a challenge? yes. is it achievable? absolutely. >> the leader of the opposition, matthew crowe, progressive youth allowed to speak against the motion. >> thank you, lord speaker. i want to begin by congratulating the prime minister on his remarks and for bringing this debate to the floor of the house. i don't suppose it's going to surprise honorable members

opposite very much that we are in broad agreement with the principle of a target reduction in emissions. we're the progressive party. and what we believe is that we can go further with this proposal. we're suggesting, as i'll move on to talk about in more detail, that the 100% reduction is brought forward 10 years to 2040. my lord speaker, the progressive youth alliance acknowledges the severe risks of climate change. and i welcome the prime minister's comments on a multilateral solution which will not focus solely on climate change in itself throughout this debate. my party's become used to lending its policies to the government, so if i could suggest that we move on with interand mid-term targets. i'm surprised the prime minister didn't choose to mention that. these are ways, of course, of holding such a state to account and allowing this parliament to have a say on how we reach the

target that is put forward. so we've been looking at ambitious, front-loaded targets. we believe this is the best way to progress in line with the u.k. stern report. by front loading the prime minister will be aware that changes have to be less serious to meet the 2020 peak. so we'll be looking at a 2020 target of 40% reductions. it's ambitious we know. a 2030 target with a further 30%. and a final 30% target for the 2040, bringing us to the 100% overall. we wanted to front load these as i explained because it's going to put forward a pressure which is hard at first. and we acknowledge that. but it's an opportunity for us say after the 2020 peak our party to be able to really reduce the pressure. we're obviously very concerned about investment in renewable energies. we've not heard a lot from the government about that. we'd be looking -- i'm sure we're going to be asked about

funding. so we're going to be looking at international investment loans from the development mechanism. china's taken a similar theme of around 8 billion. lord speaker, before we hear any more from the opposition, on the effects of climate change and legislation on business which i'm sure they'd like to raise, i want to assure them that it's our concern as well. we are the party, progressive indeed, but we also have the concerns of business at heart. and we agree that it's with business that these solutions in the private sector can be found. the opposition -- the opposing party must accede in this debate that this will not be solely a focus on energy emission but also private sector business and that we will acknowledge significant contributions from the non-energy emissions sector. and we didn't hear a lot about that from the government, either. lord speaker, my party is the progressive force in this chamber. and what's more, beyond any

claims that the prime minister may make, my party believes in this proposal. our manifesto said it and i will deliver it. >> hear hear. >> hear hear. >> we now come to the part where you will all have an opportunity to participate. let me remind you once again, please say who you are, do not go beyond two minutes. who is going to begin? >> the gentleman there at the back in the gray suit, and then after that. >> [ inaudible ] i fully support for the reduction of carbon emissions by 100%. however i put to you, lord speaker, that by 2050 is far too short a time to do it. in and i feel this parliament will fall short of these targets. and i would like to ask the prime minister exactly how he propose toss cut by 100% by 2050 as he proposes. >> on the front bench there, you

stood up. >> yes. [ inaudible ] from the youth democrat party representative of australia. lord speaker, this is a debate about whether the commonwealth land is a leader or a follower. the experts tell us that an emissions reduction target by 40% by 2020 globally is needed. we need a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. this is what the ipc c and their 2400 experts told us in their fourth assessment report. we need a global plan to limit emissions -- to limit emissions and to limit the temperature increase by less than two degrees. commonwealth lands, reducing our emissions, will not reduce global temperatures. however, we can and we should play a part in global action. we should bewarery about developing economy status. we should bewary of our

vulnerable industries and bewary of industries moving out of commonwealth lands, moving overseas and setting up places in places where they do not have the environmental regulation standards, where they do not have the strict controls that we as a socially responsible country put on our business and our industry in commonwealth land. commonwealth land should not introduce measures that will adversely impact on commonwealth lands 14 million low and middle-income households. so what does this mean, lord speaker? this means we need a fundamental shift in the economy of commonwealth land. we need the greatest microeconomic and macroeconomic reforms to achieve a 100% reduction in emissions by 2050. we need a carbon tax. and this is exactly what this chamb chamber legislated yesterday. we need to achieve the interim and final targets. i support clean investment in

clean energy and research development. commonwealth land 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 own emissions. we need to be a leader rather than a follower. however, 100% is well achievable. however, we need the structural adjustment in our economy, and we need it now, lord speaker. >> thank you. >> i thank the people on the opposite side for actually agreeing with us when we talk about extreme need for action and action soon. however, you have failed to engage with us on our proposition that this deadline be moved forward to 2040. and ladies and gentlemen, and my honorable colleagues, let me bring your attention to the good work of the new economics foundation based in the u.k.

itself. they are a think and do think tank that has done economic analysis as well as social policy and underground action in order to do a research on what sort of action can be done from top and from the bottom to improve our climate change situation. and very recently, lord speaker, they published a report called "zero carbon in 2030". now, those on the opposite speak of being leaders rather than followers. then why are they not going far enough and proposing that we do what we want to achieve by 2040 rather than 2050, which is a long time away. >> hear hear. >> i'm tired of the political inner sha that we saw at copenhagen as well as all the other governments that we see elsewhere in the world with regard to climate change. i'm tired of the splitticing that we see so often when it comes to climate change.

ladies and gentlemen, i put to you that we put aside past differences today. we talk about what we can really do, what we can do as a united government, and with the people of commonwealth land in order to achieve a collaborative movement towards the improvement of the climate change situation. if we mobilize the human capital of commonwealth land rather than relying purely on the businesses and relying purely on the private sector and all the brocks bureaucracy in the government we're never going to get anywhere. and i beg you, lord speaker, as well as people of opposite sides, to please respond to us regarding our proposition on achieving 100% carbon reduction by 2040. >> hear hear. >> could you just say who you are? >> my name is -- i'm representative -- but today i

stand not just the shadow of the defense minister but also a member of commonwealth land and somewhere from a. [ inaudible ] >> the gentleman from the cross benches. >> i thank you, lord speaker. my name is james rundell and i am an independent with the commonwealth youth parliament. i stand before you because i am firmly opposed to both sides reducing by 100% in the next 40 years 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. this and i would like to go on to elaborate. this i believe that under no uncertain circumstances should we be reducing carbon emissions at all. i believe that for centuries we have seen western countries develop and develop without being limited. and i'd like to remind this chamber, lord speaker, that we are still a developing country. and as a developing country we have a responsibility to our people, 60% of whom who are

under 30. and we need to provide them with jobs. i firmly believe by implementing this legislation and introducing carbon taxes we are crippling the industries which are going to provide jobs. only this morning we saw with our select committee we were having to come with new ways to cope with youth unemployment. i firmly believe that by introducing a carbon tax we are going to be strangling the industry such as agriculture and manufacturing in the same ways that emissions are strangling the atmosphere. and it's for this reason i'd like to stress on the idea of a common but differentiated responsibility. before i go onto what i believe commonwealth land should do, i'd like to introduce a statement of fact to the chamber. 19 million inhabitants of new york produce a larger carbon footprint than 766 million people across 50 developing countries. and for this reason, lord speaker, i ask this chamber, is it us who should be cutting our emissions or is it the west, the

already developed countries, the countries who have taken advantage of our atmosphere who have already exposed us? is it them, the united states for example who have still to ratify the [ inaudible ] is it up to them? they've got a 20% per capita -- emissions per capita while we've only got 4%. for this reason i believe the future is educating our people so we're aware of the dangers. thank you. >> hear hear. >> the gentleman here? yes. first one here. in the darker jacket. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is kevin cardwell, with the progressive party. i'd like to commend all the parliamentarians today for bringing this motion to the house. we all agree and 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.

so those in the opposite the prime minister started off by talking of opportunity. how about let us give our nation the opportunity to survive? the opportunity to survive past 2050. this would mean bringing the target back to 2040. this would mean being as ambitious as possible. and this would mean reaching for the stars so that we might fall in the tree tops. lord speaker, what you've heard is rhetoric. what we need is action and commitment. we implore all our young parliamentarians today to think of practical means to make this target happen by 2040. this would mean investing in renewable energy. having the firm commitment, a firm commitment to investing in our businesses and giving incentives and magnifying national insentives to our local community and our businesses to make this happen. this would mean working together

with our younger generation, with our young people. this would mean working together with our young people to make sure that this debate does not stop here but continues throughout the generations. and let us continue in life after the progressive party did, let us continue engaging them in policy debates. for example by selling them to the commonwealth climate change summits which we did in 2009. this would mean capacity building and support for advocacy and aiding advocacy for climate change. lord speaker, i commend the house once again for bringing this to the floor. and let us work together to make sure that this does not stop here, that we will go on and work towards this together. thank you, lord speaker. >> the colleague there. >> hello. my name is tanya sorris. i would like to propose against this motion. the reason is simply that this is a completely unrealistic target. the commonwealth land to achieve. i say this because the ipcc

fourth assessment report actually said that carbon dioxide emissions are projected it to grow between 2000 to 2030 to 410% globally. so keeping this in mind, i would like to reassert that this is ridiculous for us to think that we can reduce carbon emissions by 100%. and i would also like to remind this house that our primary concern for our country is economic growth. and we need to keep our eyes fixed on this. i do believe that the climate change agenda is important. it's definitely important. but it should not be at the expense of economic growth to our land. and i also believe that a carbon tax should not be imposed. the inflationary effects that this can have on our country would be very drastic, and we do not want this for our nation.

and the loss of competitiveness of our goods would go down. and we do not want this, either. so i would propose for ladies and gentlemen to please vote against this motion. thank you. >> gentleman there? >> [ inaudible ] youth parliamentaryian. i put it to my honorable friend across the way that she mentions that a developing country that we are can complete your goals for 2040 in reducing carbon emission by 100% without the help of the public sector? i put it to her that i find that doubtful. and i put it to my honorable friend the deputy prime minister that he speaks about keeping business within commonwealth land. but then also mentions how

important it is to have a carbon tax. i put it to my honorable friend that a carbon tax would encourage companies and businesses to find maybe greener pass turs within other countries, economically speaking, because they are business-oriented. and also that businesses that do stay would be encouraged to heighten their prices, putting pressure on the middle classes, et cetera. thank you. >> gentleman in the front bench here. >> thank you, lord speaker. -- representative from new zealand. ridiculous or not, these targets are aspirational. they're aspirational for our future. before i start i've just got to comment. i'd like to start by saying what an honor it is to be in the surroundings of the lord speaker and especially being able to debate here in the lord's chamber. it's an abc privilege.

-- absolute privilege. i'd like to thank the house for making this a possibility. >> hear hear. >> global warming is without a doubt the biggest issue facing our generation. let's be clear. if we don't make major and proactive -- if we don't take a measured and proactive approach to these issues it is not us that will face the consequences of issues we have caused. it's our grand children and future generations. as a world of unpredictable weather, rising seas, warmer temperatures and polluted atmosphere something we want to pass onto future generations? i think not,load. this government is greater than the manifesto to bander to big business in the private sector. many factors obviously require consideration when based on the approach of combatting these issues. we need to take an approach that does not cut the economy at the knees. we need to take incremental and significant steps towards our emission goals.

once again, lord speaker, we must be clear the potential consequences of not dealing effectively with global warming are greater than the economy. if we remove the domestic and global economy from the picture, what are we left with? we're left with planet earth. and we cease to exist as human beings with others. nothing less than a global approach towards these issues will suffice. however, lord speaker, we need to be realistic and implement proactive measure today and assure a better tomorrow for us, our family, our friends and future generations. arguments that the current government goals are in line with with international standards is simply a cop out. lord speaker, let's not follow but let's lead the world in combatting global warming today. >> hear hear. >> second bench there. yes, indeed. >> thank you, lord speaker, for giving way. we must propose for the motion to reduce emissions in the

commonwealth land by 100%. if we are to do this properly, we must go all the way and we must aim high. i appreciate this is an ambitious target. but i equally appreciate we must equally appreciate this is an important target to meet for the future well being of our younger generations, and the environment they will subsequently inherit from us. there 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, will we as a nation not ultimately face such disasters? and one they do come to us in their numbers, will we be prepared? will our global economy that's already been suffering be not suffering anymore? i agree we must be a leader. we may lose valuable resources, finances, fine effort to mitigate these natural disasters when they do actually occur. we must create a pre-emptive strategy to ensure that in many

years to come such disasters will be prevented. and it is a scientifically proven fact that such disasters will be prevented if carbon emissions are reduced by 100%. we will indeed prevent further disruption to an already growing agriculture economy. the solution really is to support development of a grown economy through investment into the private sector which will create jobs, generate wealth and provide confidence to the agricultural sector in the global 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 overregulate the existing private sector but instead build a country of trust and confidence, that in the future one day we cannot be uncertain but we can be certain that one day we will make sure that our young generations can enjoy the coastlines that have already been degrading and enjoy the beaches and make sure our tourism industry is in better

growth. and must ignite this carbon emissions -- reduce it by 100%. we must go all the way with it. >> the gentleman at the second bench. >> thank you, madam speaker. i would first like to commend the government on seeing the urgency and importance on acting on such a vital issue. i would also like to commend them for setting such a laudably ambitious target. i would like to urge the government to act on multilateral efforts. we must reach an international consensus on this issue. otherwise the efforts that we go to as an individual nations will not be enough to give a decisive change to the global warming that we face. furthermore, i would like the government to focus on adapt to go the climate change that we know is inevitable to a certain degree. because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for such a long amount of time, we know that in the coming decades we will face certain changes to our climate which will adversely

effect us if we are not prepared. we will see hotter and drier summers, and we will see warmer and wetter winters. and we need to be prepared for any consequences that may arise as a result of that. so again, i'd like to thank the government for putting forward targets for carbon emission, but this cannot be our sole focus if we are looking at climate change. >> please say who your. >> david ogachay, cyp, united kingdom. >> my name is lisa garvey. on behalf of the commonwealth parliamentarian. it has been proved by scientific facts that greenhouse effects that we put to the world the more it affects us. we should be leaders in improving our industry through use of reusable sources like solar, hydro electricity. if we invest in the future of our future generations for

profit we will see more and more adverse effects like in the past we've seen japan, the hurricanes. and it will continue to happen. we should be the ones who should be the chains and in the words, we should lead them, not us wait for someone else to do it. if we don't do it, who will? load lord speaker, i suggest that we show the rest of the world, lead by example, that we will do it, we will make the change. because if we don't do it, no one will. the sea temperatures are rising. the polar ice caps are melting. if we don't do anything we'll just keep increasing. i as a human being have faith in us. we have 39 years to make a difference. and i believe that we can do it. i have faith in us as human beings. 30 years ago there was no answer. but look at us now. we can effect with the touch of a second to people that are miles and miles away. we can do it as a human being.

we can. thank you. >> gentleman there? >> hugh renlard, commonwealth -- ladies and gentlemen, there's 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 leaders. let me ask you, how many countries listen to japan on nuclear disarmament? how many countries listened to norway when preaching peace? i put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, that we are debating the wrong issue. there will come a time, and maybe it is now, for innovation to reduce our carbon footprint. but today we must look after our own. a recent poll conducted prior to the british election asked how important is climate change to young people today. in 2007, the figure was 17%. when it was conducted recently it was 4%. we are facing huge youth unemployment in commonwealth land. our young people will not thank

us in 2050 if they were faced with no jobs when they were younger, carbon footprint or no. we must look after our own. we must not try to overinfluence 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. we must ensure that our young people have jobs that they can foster and that our country can continue to grow. >> hear hear. >> thank you, lord speaker. first i would like to say that government should not govern with a theory of [ inaudible ] 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 do have to act. but we have to act in a rational and a reasonable way. i will not be supporting this

motion. do i support a carbon tax that transition noose a cap-and-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 will also support and encourage any discussions about the correct system to employ for the cap-and-trade scheme. what we see over the years is a lot of the times that we both agree on what should be done but we just 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's commit to work together to solve this issue that we all face as global citizens. let's 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. really inspire the movement to a growing economy in the society,

not closure of businesses that are so important for employment. i challenge those on the other side of the chamber proposing the amendments to inform the house of how the targets will be reached, how we'll be reaching them by 200040. thank you very much. >> the gentleman from the cross benches there. thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. fellow youth parliamentarians -- at first i would like to bring about some figures about global effort to reduce the carbon emissions. in the u.k. the government has increased the reduction target from at least 80% in the climate change act in 2050 from the previous 60% target. in 2007 japan has unveiled its ambitious plan to cut global greenhouse gas by 50% by 2050 that would include the world's

big e biggest, united states and china. on the other hand, european union has targeted about 90% of the reduction in the emission by 2050 to transform the european union into a competitive low carbon economy. -- so i would have a question to ponder in this commonwealth country, is it feasible for this commonwealth country to reach the target for 50% by 2050? from here i would like to call the government to strengthen its cooperation with the global communities and international organization 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 would actively participate in it. even our commonwealth country could not be comparable with other developed countries in terms of investment of the technology in the greater technology. but then we could still initiate to work hand in hand in order

for us to move forward for a less carbon and fossil fuel-dependent country. the government must therefore strengthen the enforcement of the legislation that we found just yesterday for all the participants including the business and the private sectors toer more efficient in using the energy and deliver the [ inaudible ] that the scientists are calling for in order for earth to reach the target. and then there's no guarantee that we can succeed. but then at least we act ambitiously with proper road maps will have reason to hope that it can be achieved. 50% reduction by 2050. thank you. >> the lady here? yes, thank you. >> thank you. elizabeth anderson, parliamentarian. 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. commonwealth land is young enough to change its ways. the motion for 2050 provides an

ambitious but realistic time frame in my opinion. we have to act now, though, to develop the skills that we need to our education system to enable the growth of decar onized and low carbon industries. for promoting and nurturing our growing technology industry which we know is one of our main strengths within commonwealth land we can create a haven for scientific leadership in the sector. we should be encouraging entrepreneurship to bring forward more companies that can help the public to develop the tools that they need to change their behavior. because only through the public's behavior will change an industry working with them can we achieve this. and in this we can then do what every country has always wanted. the government, industry and the public working together to make its nation a better place. thank you, lord speaker. >> gentleman in the light green. yes. >> lord speaker, fellow parliamentarians, i think we need to readdress the way we are talking about this issue. the issue is not concerned why

should we decrease the number of carbon emissions that we have. i mean, there should be a road map. we should be talking about a strategy. we should be talking about a road map where we can follow and lead us to this place where we need to decrease this number of carbon emissions we have in our society. if we're talking about employment, if we're talking about economy, you don't want to have an economy where the young people come in behind you will not enjoy those things you're enjoying. there are some very, very deprived part of this commonwealth society, i mean the commonwealth land, that are suffering. i mean, in the dry season they don't have clean water to have. the wells are dry. and so you're talking about the economy when we can only be facial the economy, we've got to facing a culture. we've got to face all other things. and just like fellow parliamentarians said just now, we need to look at it. because this is the opportunity for us to look inwards and look at ways that we as a young

economy can -- and all the technology we have around now and use it to our good. if we use it to our good we'll be able to look inwards and look at ways where we can come up with that would not only encourage us to reduce the emissions but will spur the west to action that going to look at this smart nation, they are thinking ahead. now, we are not going to leave it to them. but because they see us doing it they're going to be encouraged to do it as well. so don't let us just look at the economy, just at agriculture, just unemployment. because we've got to look at the issues. so i put it to those on the opposite, give us your strategy. give us your road map. let us see how would you want from one step to the other. let us see how you want to tackle this issue. we can't just keep on discussing that we need to have a road map. let's know where we're going. thank you, lord speaker. >> hear hear.

>> the gentleman right at the end there. thank you. >> thank you, madam speaker. steven marshall. just want to mention the fact that of key importance is to gain the individual support in this so therefore the government must obviously state what benefits their individuals can have. because the individuals are key behind this. they can change consumer behavior, thus companies will have to change behavior within the country. that is one important fact. the next point is also government support around community actions whether or not be helping them community grassroots setup and community groups whether it be creating energy or other forces good for the environment. and people have to really see benefits before they want to change the mind. so if they can't see say like wind turbines, et cetera, out the back window, if they cannot see themselves benefitting directly they will not be in support of it. so we have to make sure all the

time that individuals are on board with this vote. and finally, there's a lot of youth graduates and experts leaving our country. this is because of various reasons, probably because we're still developing. but one fact is, we can lead the way by becoming a green economy, therefore we have a very, very strong export that we can give to the world. so let's keep them here. let's fund the different schools of research in universities in the country. keep the graduates here. we can do it. we just have to do it in the right places with the right support and the right time. >> thank you, madam lord speaker. [ inaudible ] from pakistan. commonwealth youth parliament. democratic party. reduce carbon emissions by 50% in 29 years or 29 years actually seemed impossible. because i'd like to mention that even the refrigerator at home in

the homes, they emit carbons. so you have to see how the public adopt this carbon emission because they have to replace everything because they getting into new enrollment. so we have to look at how the public adopts this change. now another thing i would like to mention is it should be mentioned that there should be more reforestation. because the commonwealth lands have a greater issue of deforestation nowadays. and another thing i would like to mention is there should be a flexibility in the bill if a commonwealth land has a problem like which is serious such as floods, as floods in pakistan. so it actually put them decades back. and they had to put money on

reconstructions rather than technology. so that's another point that you have to look at, the flexibility. because that can reduce the input into the reduction of carbon emissions. thank you, madam speaker. >> indeed. lady. yes. >> lord speaker. [ inaudible ] . 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 resources but effectively would be the most to suffer the consequences. >> hear hear. >> small state from the republic of malta. size has nothing to do with how much or effective a state can be on a global sphere. only a few weeks ago [ inaudible ]

in the libyan crisis. however, in terms of climate change, size does matter. small states should be positively discriminated and the large scheme of things. not to mention carbon tax and the carbon efforts and the community through the commonwealth must give adequate financial and social assistance to them. unless this principle of solidarity is applied, it will lead to a situation where so much will be carried by so few. thank you. >> i think one or two people who have spoken before are standing up. colleague, honorable colleague. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is caroline king from kenya. i stand here to support this motion. [ inaudible ] today the threat from climate

change it is a serious threat. it is urgent and it is growing. and when generations respond to this challenge we'll be judged by our future generations. so it is our duty to act boldly, swiftly and together. as we seek to concerning future generations, to avoid concerning the future generations to a universal world catastrophe. industrial processes, transportation, residential and commercial activities -- banning some of the barometers of carbon gasses. [ inaudible ] small non-nation, even the poor cannot escape from the impact of climate change. lord speaker, the security and civility of our nations of the commonwealth land is in jeopardy

of our people, of our prosperity, of our health and safety. and the time to address this is now. lord speaker, the problems that we are facing today are monumental and the problems can be resolved by man. creating awareness on the causes and the effects and the solution to climate change, investing in reforestation of our forests, investing in restoration of our ecosystem, river basins and development of renewable energy are some of the ways we can do to reduce climate change. our lord speaker, with those few remarks i beg to support motion. >> indeed. lady here. thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. i'm quite baffled, lord speaker,

frankly, by the term marrity of some in this chamber who do not support this motion. because i believe that 100% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050 is ambitious but achievable. we cannot in commonwealth land afford not to be a leader in reducing our carbon emissions. >> hear hear. >> my honorable colleagues, need i remind you that in 2007 at a commonwealth heads of government meeting in uganda it was said that climate change, and i quote "is a direct threat to the very survival of some commonwealth countries". the last time i checked, commonwealth land was part of the commonwealth states. >> hear hear. >> okay. we need to be cognizant 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 irnt duesing a carbon tax or carbon

trading scheme is going to push businesses out of our land, i tell you, my government is committed to operate entrepreneur to our people so we can have our own businesses. we do not need those from foreign coming into our country when we can do it for ourselves. >> hear hear. >> as minister for development, i say to you, my government is committed to a dual approach to reducing carbon emissions. not only do we have a carbon tax and a trading scheme, but we are also going to look into the use of sustainable means. we are going to use our land properly. we are going to use our forest properly. we are going to encourage 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 commonwealth land. and i beg you, my honorable

colleagues, to support this motion. i thank you. >> please say who your. >> alicia alley. the youth democratic party. >> thank you very much. the lady in the third row there. yes. >> lord speaker, i would like to point out that this motion is unique in the sense that both parties agree on this motion on the whole. but there is one main difference that i would like to propose. the we will reduce reductions by 100% by 2050, by relying heavily upon the private sector. i feel as if this is a very 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 jail approach, invest in heavy flee green industry, and trying with every resource we have to make this a reality. the secretary of state very articulately stated that we're a leader and not a follower. so i feel that it is important

to invest in green industry, not with for the larger nations to do so or the western nations to did so and encourage green -- and encourage our own domestic produce industries alcohol employ the youth of tomorrow. has been stated as a very important issue. i believe that to remain competitive in the world economy we need to develop renewable, in source and other countries will, in turn, invest it these industries. during a financially difficult time i believe the green industries remain one of the few industries that are certain to grow in the next 30 years. ao lawyer, gardener, scientists, the list goes on, thousands and thousands of young employees will benefit from our sizable investment in the green industry. sorry my name is anna chestnutt, i'm representing northern ireland on the commonwealth parliament. thank you. >> very much, indeed. gentleman at back there. >> okay, i'm josh, thank you.

i am from the dees pa. we heard a lot today about this bill. it's a great chance to reduce our common emissions. the list -- attacks on our missions. must be ring-fenced both to promote growth but by we must grow our way out of this problem by promoting growth within our green industries. i'm seeking to employ as many young people as possible. we must seek to reinvest the tax that would damage our business. into thats same businesses to promote groegts. thank you. >> gentleman at the end of the row there. yes, thank you. >> thank you, madam speaker. lord speaker, sir. straight-talk, unequivocal and necessary. carbon emissions are the leading cause of the drastic climate

change phenomenon we see today. we are gambling with our future every day we do not acknowledge this fact, that we are responsible for our actions. i'm not asking this honorable house mary as a member, as a fellow human being, don't turn a blind eye on this. this debate on climate change has been over for years from the scientific perspeperspective. two of the world's leading organizations have proven that, in essence, drastic climate change is happening now. the time to act to stop it was yesterday. and if we don't change our act now, we will have no tomorrow. the leader of the opposition and his members seek to -- the target date forward ten years and have yet put forward nothing tangible to support their pulling for the bill. they do not understand the fact

that there is still work to be done in reaching development. as well as in changing public opinion. the honorable hour, the entire world will rest on the cusp of a tipping point. we cannot see the edge of this precipice. threaten nothing short of global anarchy. the members of the independence who spoke earlier said that they believe that we should not reduce our emissions. said that they have the responsibility to our people. i agree with his part of the statement. that we do have a front our people, a responsibility to their lives, their security, and their ways of living pithank you, honorable house. >> at the end of the front bench, yes. >> lord speaker, lucy from south

australia from the commonwealth youth parliaments. stand and support a significant reduction in carbon emissions in commonwealth land by 2050 but not the 100% proposed. while should be common welt land's goal. commonwealth land has a unique population distribution which does provide an opportunity to significantly address our carbon emissions. this is the large youth population. we see that in our youth we are best able to learn new behaviors and change our current ones and this stands true for positive environment action. we see this internationally in countries, such as australia in which we've had 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 around these changes and i look forward to seeing commonwealth land's curriculum integrating awarns as we do work towards

emission reduction. but it's also this youth population which is going to be -- which needs protection and we seem common welt land high youth unemployment and already unwillingness by employees to employ young, particularly less-skilled workers and impact 100% carbon emission reduction would have -- 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 them from employing our youth. are going it allow us to reduce our carbon emissioning and also a group that needs to be protected and, therefore, i do believe that the 100% by 2050 is too severe and in the interest of today's youth, i beg this house to reconsider. >> and the lady from the cross benches, sfleez thank you, lord speaker. amy robinson from the northern territory of australia.

it is my privilege to stand before you. forgive my digression, lord speaker, bur i must acknowledge my mom and dad who have raise mead 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 the concerns that they hold. i hold the view that the planet has been changing for millions of years. the planet will continue to change for millions of years. i feel that we humans now feel that we can control the planet to suit us. that as of using a television remote, we can hit pools and help the planet and common weltland. commonwealthland will forever stay the way that it is now. i havem embraced that the climate is changing that we need to adapt. i think that there are many pressing climate change issues that are often put to the snide favor 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 feel we have lost focus on what is vitally personality. my use on carbon emissions is unpopular yet i know i represent many young people who are often confused by the wide variety of source of information that are available. by young people that are bullied and later denies if they dare ask questions of popular scientific belief. and yet they members of the global community with a conscience. i ask youth parliamentarians that we do not forget that climate change is not just about reducing carbon emissions. thank you, lord speaker. >> gentleman in the back -- at the back row, thank you. >> lord speaker. cdp. regarding the issue being green, we have to relate to my honorable prime minister of the

opposition. co 2 emission the only problem, no. then coming to my own path. is the target achievable, yes. so far the commonwealthland part of the union. who are also talking with the goal in the position of the what is it called. the tce,s tech -- sorry. yeah. trying to maintain the technology to be able to reduce carbon emission. so far we've got a power plant reducing the rate of carbon emission ahead by 80% to 90%. what my question is is why are we doing this? is it good to reduce this 100%? yes. but the fact is, why are we

using it? is that issue we should face now is and are we balancing with the other problems? the problem in the economy. what the purpose of reducing carbon emissions 100% and in other paths? looking at sboev this decision. make sure that everyone is -- is carbon emission a disaster, yes. but why i need to put on is that we need to balance it and make sure that everything goes right according to time and for the benefit of these front areas. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. ydp. as stand in support of a significant reduction of carbon emission by 2050, by 2050 but not 100% but at least 60% by 2014. climate change is undoubtedly the single greatest

environmental issue of the 21st century. and threat to mankind inon which one can sustain developmental effort. reduction of poverty and sustained economic growth as i speak now -- from coastal erosion. if it must -- concentrations. under control rising seas. commonwealthland including countries that are lying on low-est canal areas at the same time people being displaced with no legal protection. i must point out -- i must point out that the countries eye must point out -- i must point out -- sorry. i must point out that the countries contribute at least to endangering the planet are

amongst us. as we discuss and deby the as we discuss and debate the global playing for sustainability and also remember the vulnerability of so many effective less and developing states. it is imperative that we take strong action against climate change immediately to protect commonwealthland and also depends on it. now as i can see the opposition -- [ laughter ] as i can see the opposition party is trying to make climate change responsibility of the government and they're trying to put it in our faces. that's not discriminate. why should you? we should come up with policies and frameworks that can follow on how we can combat and how kewei can come about these targets. i thank you, lord speaker. >> thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. -- to support the motion.

a reduction of carbon emission 100% by 2050 is t is unachievable objective. climate change is a growing concern on climate change a. as a government to come up with -- among them include -- the environment yamcondition. a reduction of use of -- unless invest in energy. we have reduced carbon emission. more important, my fellow colleagues, it is important to understand that carbon emission

has done more harm in most of these countries, both develop d developed -- countries. important for all of us. fights this common enemy. which is climate change. and by so being, we will achieve our target, let's be positive and forward-thinking when it comes to a reduction of carbon emission. and we enhance sustainable development. to help the benefits in an environment that is -- i thank you, lord speaker. >> the gentleman here if the front. yes. >> lord speaker, i'm francis from nigeria. youth alliance. i have said this a couple of times that this government

decide -- [ unintelligible ] it shows that the house is in disarray and lack a common agenda. emissions by 2050 which we on the opposite side have actually talked about 2040, we believe that all the -- have to be addressed. the government for once has never mentioned -- in which supposed to serve. talk about carbon tax, businesses and all of the likes. but the citizens are actually call the agenda for any government that actually has an initiative to lead. we are at a vital crossroad. and as -- the minister, i would say agenda, and what is needed. we have to not stand alone but partners to put this forward. i hereby call on the government on the other side of the divide to help us in our quest to

attend -- but by adopting our common agenda of pushing this forward -- bringing this backtwoord 2040 we could achieve 100% emission reduction by 2040. so i call on you to accept our plan and to support our proposal, thank you. >> the gentleman here, thank you. >> thank you, madam speaker. i found myself as a young -- who lives not far from here. who's parents came to this country in the 1970s. immigrated here as born and brought up here. they were in search of a better life. i was honorary fellowship in 2009. where i spent six weeks living in india and working there. and i was with a poor family there in one of the most rural areas of india, who didn't have tv, who are living in tins. that's the situation in which meant developing countries find

themselves in in rural india. are we really saying to those countries who are developing that you can't develop? we've had 150 years of development in the west. we've got tv screens all across this room. we are using more cars than ever before. we've had kyoto protocol. we've had a responsibility in the west as much as the commonwealth to reduce carbon emissions but it can't just be an effort for the commonwealth. there's already been improvements made. about if you look at commonwealth statistics, the facts state that the people are recycling more than ever before. so that's challenges that the commonwealth are taking themselves but it needs take collective effort with the united states with china with india, all of the global economies together as the honorable members were saying earlier on, there needs to be a road plan to collectively fight this. but the issue presented by the government, the fact of reducing it by 50% in 50 years is

unrealistic and i find myself on the opposition benches also, disagreeing where what the opposition benches are saying to reduce it by 2040 is i think losing -- somewhat. i think that we need to be realistic. we need to -- we all agree in this house that carbon emissions need to be reduce bud we need to collectively together in the year end and in our international framework to fight this global evil. thank you. >> lady in the front here. >> thank you lord speaker. i'm eliz bectmurray from the young democratic party. i would like to express my concern that attack it is from opposition coming towards our party suggesting disarray because as far as i was concerned this forum is for expressing individual opinions and sentiment on our problem, climate changes and emission targets and not seem to be parting party rhetoric. now there is one point that

seems to be consistently overlooked over this entire debate. and it seems to me that the only way to meet emission's targets whether they are 100% by 2040 or less is through motivating behavioral change. and the only way do this is through setting achievable and realistic targets. i would like to put to you that 100% by 2040 is just simply unrealistic for -- political policy forcing action through monetary disincentives such as carbon tax

and emissions trading schemes changes behavior by making people unable to afford to engage in behaviors that increase carbon in the environment. people will no longer -- because they can't afford it. people will drive their cars less because they can't afford it but for long-term change, and by this i mean 2100 and beyond not just 2050, for this to be effective paralleled with forced economic behavior, there needs to be a shift in attitudes. so that people fact these ways because they want to. they want to not turn on their hating. they want to drive their cars less in order to protect the environment. the essential part of doing this is in setting realistic and achievable targets. it is no good to be excessive on targets but yet labbing in

realism. >> the second bench there. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is justine from uganda. reduction of carbon emissions by 2050 and i'm proud to report that us in uganda we are already trying to do so. we are talking about a 2050. because it will give the government time to educate the commonwealth population about the negative effects of carbon emissions, and also give us time to research and develop and also encourage -- carbon and renewable sources. two about proposition of taxes. would discourage yashon emission. and also help us invest more in the renewable energy resources.

i support the motion. >> very much indeed. gentleman, at the end of the row here, yes, yes, thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. progressive youth ash lines. can i start by thinking the government. i think a fantastic initiative and it does have my support. i'm particularly pleased that have suggested a carbon tax but most surprised that it is the party opposite suggesting this. the party of antispend and antitax but i must say i'm very glad they've momentarily adopted my party's center left values and may that continue. i'm also very pleased that in earlier proceedings my parent's amendment was accepted to determine whether revenues from this tax will go. this is really good news. economic case against the carbon tax is actually a strong one. companies can just compensate themselves by raising their prices which would affect the poorest now in society most and 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 also ensure that there will be invest in the renewable energy to help us reach this target. it's all on that basis that i will be supporting this motion and would urge all my commonaries on all sides of the house to support this motion as well. and what i would say is why it may not be as ambitious as my party would like i would say a target is better than no target at all and so we should all vote here in motion and also say that it is legitimate to concern some the concerns raised from my honorable friend from jersey an also say it is not good to go down his rate of pessimism and not my problem attitude. i think we should be ignoring that. these initiatives are very positive and i do welcome them, we must acknowledge that they will count for absolutely nothing they're only unilateral measures. it doesn't matter what we do if

countri countries like china and india continue to increase their carbon emissions. we could reduce them by 100%, even 200%, let's say we do d it it would matter for nothing if china indiaa increase their's by 5% so what i'm asking government to do is to put forward their foreign affairs minister to make a statement on what exactly he's going to do internationally to encourage other countries to adopt the same things that we've done, but i must say i'm very glad that i believe that commonwealthland is going to be an example to the rest of the world so thank you for putting forward this motion. >> gentleman there with the ominous -- >> good afternoon, my name is nate. i'm representing the cdp. i just wanted to raise some notes from earlier. you say you want to bring a carbon tax, but yet you haven't really looked at the little man in the picture, the man that has a small business, who runs one

fan which is very old. it does create carbon but he's struggling. >> n these difficult times. show this tax going to help him survive his business if he's going to have to -- more money for another tax to pay for a van that he can barely afford and not have enough customers. you've also got look at also the youth. you are say you want the youth to help but where is the government's support? again you've got take out of climate change and look at the things like raising the university fees the unemployment for youths as well and also the rising cost in travel. probably looking at buying a car because they find it's cheaper and again their carbon footprint will be increased. what is the government doing to help them with their travel costs?

>>. >> from the common youth. reducing carbon emission by 100% in 2050 is feasible. my lord speaker, samoa is a pacific island. they already invested a lot in renewable energy to reduce carbon emission. if the small islands in the pacific can do it why not common weltland. my fellow young parliamentaries on opposition side say if you do talk about reducing carbon emission by 100% in 2040 why don't you explain how. how, then? 250 reducing carbon emission by 100% is realistic. reducing it in 2040 by 100% is unrealist unrealistic. let us then forechange, let us lead by examples. let us be the one that can

actually, our young generation can, look at and say, that was my mother, that was my father, that was my great-grandmother that actually stand up for a change. thank you, lord speaker. >> i think that we're back to this side, are we not? the gentleman there and then the lady behind. yeah. >> thank you. i'd like to bring all of my -- friends, fellow parliamentarians. i have a question to propose to the house today and the question is simple. the question is, 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? what if the next american president is a climate skeptic and does not agree? do we go on without america? how will we -- how do we proceed when we have nations that we, let's face it, depend on hob part of our goals? we all know the effect that individual administration, prime

ministerships can have on the world, how do we do it if all that it takes is one prime minister or a leader of a nation of a big economy that says, no, i'm not interested in that. i'd rather look at education, or i'd rather look at health. how do we reduce carbon emissions to zero if we do that? thank you. >> i'm against the motion. we should be hopeful and we should be welcoming toward the italian youth and we should be realistic and we should be are very practical. our factories, our industries are running on nonrenewable researches. commonwealthland renewable resources of economy. we're struggling to find a

renewable source for that. >> it's the people who are paying for all of these mutations. commonwealthland includes those countries where people -- where a large population live on the poverty line and do not even manage average 20 pounds per month making this ambitious goal impractexam thank you. >> take one more from this side. gentleman with glasses there. thru. >> thank you, lord speaker. this house, so far, we all recognize there's a problem with unemployment. we recognize there's a problem that we have -- that we need to compromise with the nature that we have to have green energy. while i think, lord speaker, this is the first time.

with the government now putting forward the commitment of putting money forward in providing a greener and a better life in the commonwealthland. therefore, i urge that the government, to call back, all these skilled workers because now we're still face the migration of those -- workers who are going outside and we're having the problem of unskilled workers in our own country. and we need to have solved that problem to begin with. now, the whole 2040 target, i think it's not realistic. but whole idea of reduce -- of the reduction gradually 30%, 20%, 40% i think is good. because we need to adapt. because we at end of our day, we're still a developing nation. and we need that leeway to provide ourselves the growth for

our country. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. >> thank you, lord speaker. let's all -- i start like this let's all of the commonwealthland unite in the fight for a realistic figure, that is 100% by 2050. it is a fight, so we y do we insthaft we're such targets in 2040? it's thyme we -- our future generation living in a healthy and sustainable environment. coming from a small country, we are already affected by the carbon emission. i believe that commonwealthland shall be the leader to be the first who reaches emission by 100% by 2050. by saving our country, we will

be saving our world. thank you. >> the gentleman -- you haven't spoken before? >> no. lord speaker, i represent the ruling party. i'm standing up in support of this motion because i believe that the people from the smaller island nations and the people from the nations that are under the direct threat of climate change, also has a right to call -- to dmift our planet. lord speaker, the pessimists will rush to stand up and say what we are discussing is ridiculous. but the realistic truth is is this is happening. this is real. climate change is real. it is time to act up, ladies and gentlemen. climate change is something that is going to happen if we ignore it. you do a lot of global temperatures rise by 2 degrees, just 2 degrees, it could mean

disaster. it could mean countries like the maldives like samoa to day, pier from the map. we need to act now. we need to act now because we are not in the position to cut a deal with mother nature. we are not in the position to negotiate with the laws of physics. we need to act now. lord speaker, to the world, commonwealthland may be just one single country, we may be just one, but we need to become leaders rather than followers. we need to lead by example. and we need to show the world that we do care about those people who are under direct threat and who are -- w and while i mention refugees. so let us all join together and

let us set out our differences and let us think mutually and let us agree together that we need to pass this motion. we need to achieve 100% in 2050. who are with me? thank you very much. >> lady at the back there. i'm a member the cdp. we cause the co2 emissions to rise and obviously we can reverse that. resources in the green industry to find new ways to generate power. we should educate our citizens in climate control so that they know the importance of reversing it and also to equip them in sufficient ways to survive when the carbon tax does come in, or if it does come in. that way we have secured the future for our children and samoa and maldives. this lazy attitude of waiting for more developed countries to

start this change and that we should be the ones to take it's to change first, to lead. so we should ask ourselves whether why they're more developed than us? is it because they use more carbon than us? why is it? and also how also we support the small man. i think that shuremember the small man in this. and how our ways it changing the carbon emissions will affect him. thank you very much. >> you have spoken before. >> yes. >> cdp. i would like to thank the lord speaker for giving me this chance to speak. after hearing all of the commons i would like to give my own -- to you to this debate. i would like to say that i think we need a balance between renewable and nonrenewable energy. since if one fails, we can always rely on the other. and as we've seen in libya a fuel-producing country which is now war-torn and especial loo in

the uk, prices have definitely soared if a nonrenewable, in here in the uk, fueled cars and when disasters like libya strike and fuel prices do go up, we've got that backup. and i think that's what we need to have. a balance between renewable and nonrenewable energy. i think this house needs to come to some kind of agreement to say that we need more -- more renewable -- or more unrenewable balance. if one fails we can use the other. this is to preserve the nation and the earth. but until the end of time itself. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. the gentleman there with the red tie, yes. >> -- of this humanity and high morality. i'm from the commonwealth -- fr

from sierra leone. [ unintelligible ] i'm not sure we are here here in. we have to accept. the facts are there. it is clear. we do not need to ask questions. but my point is why do we need a bill? why do we need to tell people how to live our life? climate change is about us. take to prison. so responsibility to us young people. we need to act. we need to shot world that we are serious about reducing carbon emission. in is simple. it's a simple process. we just need change our attitude. and it's not just as pligzs. i know that we are good at delivering good speeches. very nice talks. but fact of the matter is it is

about action. the people in the kmurnt let's take it to the politicians and get it done and let's make it better please for ourselves and our children and our children's children. >> hi. my name is judith. i'm from the cdp. i'm against the motion because in order for us to do this we're going to have to put money into it. when the money can go somewhere else, we are common welt but we're all different countries and we all have different problems. so for the uk to put money into reducing carbon dioxide when we have other problems, like ununemployment,iate emissions might reduce but then we might have the advisories as the other day so no point. if certain countries have undergreater threat then they should be putting their own sbhoin their own country for reducing their emissions and we can deal with our own issues.

we do recycle. we can do other things to progress and help it but we don't need to center as a target and put pressure on ourselves which we can't deal with. >> one more from this side. >> yeah thank you, lord speaker. i'm from the british virgin islands. lord speaker, in a world of dr. annan, the primary responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens and care for them. lord speaker, most arguments in favor of climate kmanc atclimat. we deponed ourselves. however, on the contrary, many scientists believe -- and this is in the american policy around the table -- there is no convincing scientific evidence that anyone who believes in carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases in the foreseeable future cause -- a catastrophic events on the world's atmosphere and distribution of the earth's climate. therefore, lord speaker, i maintain that in commonwealthland at that time climate change is not a priority. we have other matters of concern. we need to concentrate on the environment and instant implementation of measures of how to preserve and how to protect it. we need to focus on health and how to improve our health care system. lastly we need to focus on education for the betterment of our citizens. the environment is one of our gre greatest resource. everyone wants to reduce pollution however pollution is complicated and we focus a lot of our pollution efforts on pollution from cars. however, if you look around, you will realize that we have a higher degree of garbage litter. sewage that's running into the rivers and the seas and

definitely take these measures into consideration. commonwealthland has begun to degrade and my colleagues may be able to climate change i maintain that pollution in this country is a major contributing factor to the degradation of the land. lord speaker, the biggest asset we have is our health. how can we forecast or limiting greenhouse gas emissions when our universal health care system is in poor shape. we need monitor our health. we need to look at our mortality rate and that's why i stand in opposition of this bill. thank you, lord speaker. >> the lady from the cross benches please. >> thank you, lord speaker. the targets proposed are indeed aspirational and i'm not convinced that commonwealthland will be able to achieve them.

and some -- may not come with us if we speak follow these targets. but this cannot be an excuse for inaction. if we use this as a big 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've been signed up to the u.n. framework conventional climate change from the outset and we've succeeded in reaching our targets to date. we have a commitment to transferring to renewable energy sources and citizens already have an awareness about climate change and recycling is common around households. there's foundations upon which we can build a very strong strategy. i'm 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 this to follow these aspirational targets, we risk becoming a laggard rather than a leader. we risk becoming uncompetitive with our neighbors which would be to the detriment of our quality life and of our citizens and we'd be failing as a government if that were to happen. thank you. >> lady at the back. and then the gentleman next to her. >> thank you, lord speaker. representing the commonwealth. i think that we cannot ignore the fact that -- are going to be running out andintually finished. it's very ambitious. it's vital and very practical and realistic. i say realistic because whether we reduce the carbon emissions by 100% by 2050 or not, there

will be by -- by 100%. so we need to act now. we need to act quickly. we need to stop being so dependent on them and look for greener alternates because we need to be able to function without them. thank you. >> yes. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is raphael. part of the cdp. i don't oppose the bill. however, both the government and as it's clear the parliament haven't met the answers -- sorry, haven't answered all of my questions. firstly, we're a nation that has free education up to the age of 16 yet it's not compulsory. we're a nation that does not have a universal immunized program. this parliament's relationship with the media is not a positive one. the media is what the people think of us. how do we then expect to actually create this motivation

to change behavior? and if we do not, if we do not, and we have not created this relationship with our own people. i'd also like explanations as to, in the bill it states that we want for each target year 80% of the net reduction to come from domestic productions. where does this end? are we simply talking transportation and electric, or do we actually mean the industries that are creating and polluting in order to give our people all of the amenities that they're used to. also we as a nation have a higher import to export ratio. we favor import. meaning we are not actually reducing any of the carbon emissions caused by other countries which we still

contribute to. many of our rogue network are major arteries for those companies. if those companies do not have a base in our country yet they still pass, create incredible, incredible emissions. if improve our roads they are still our responsibility due to our contribution. are they taxed also? many -- i want to state very clearly that i do not oppose the bill. however i do oppose it if we're entering into a false -- if our research is not full enough and if our research and insight into commonwealthland's entire contribution does not completely show and explain our contribution to emissions. >> gentleman here, thank you. >> lord speaker, my fellow youth

parliamentarians. framemalawi. i've been living to all of the points that my fellow parliamentarians are presenting. and i have realized that much of their issues has been -- in two minutes but issues have just been no, no, no to what the government has proposed. my take on the climate change bill is that i have seen that the opposition is drilling the agenda of the day for their political ambitions to get -- into government. much as they agree on our proposal they -- to constructively help the got achieve its goals for the benefit of all of us. lord speaker, 2050 reduction of carbon emission by 50% is an issue that is supported. we'll have the future generation, that issue of natural disasters will be a thing of the past. as we are in an economic crisis

already, which resources that are there will be used for development activities? lord speaker, my government believes in working with, which as a government in pourns that the input that the opposition may add will greater help. 2040 puts pressure on government as this alone incorporates other social, political, and economic elements. i support motion. thank you. >> we're coming to the last question. and i think i'm going to give it to the cross benches. >> thank you, lord speaker. ben. independe independent. once again we see the scare mongering from the government and the opposition. as a nation we have far more important issues to worry about. high unemployment, health and education well-being, being some many. these targets proposed by the government are ludicrous and

absolute farce. if this government wants to be taken seriously, propose something that's realistic. thank you. >> honorable friends and colleagues, i'm afraid that we've come to the end of the question time. i must congratulate all of you for extremely well sustained research arguments but we must come to our closing speeches. so now i would like to call upon the sflkt state for the environment to speak. for or against the motion. for the motion. >> lord speaker, honorable prime minister, opposition and honorable youth parliaments. i'm a representative of trinidad and tob ago and i am also representing the young democrat party. today we have heard an extensive debate on the matters of climate

change. we have collectively understood that there's a distinct difference between a climatic change as a natural process and a process that is occurring quickly because of human interference. we have all recognized as in commonwealthland there's a huge raise the pollution along with degradation and the vulnerability to the effects of climate change. the opposition has suggested that the year 2040 should be the year in which -- should be the end in which we reduce our carbon emissions by 100%. this is a ten-year difference. a difference that would infringe upon our research and development and thus affecting our framework to achieve our 100% goal by the year 2050. some honorable parents of the whole have also suggested scientific projections of carbon emissions in the future. most of these scientific

projections have been made on current trends that would alter the consideration of technological advancements and the expansion of greener technologies. with the fast pace of information and knowledge feasible growth is the only way forward. throughout our proceedings, i believe most of my honorable colleagues have used climate change very loosely. climate change is such a generic term and it deserves extreme attention to its many subdivisions. its use of global warming, emissions of greenhouse gases, sea temperatures, sea levels, increasing land and air temperatures, a disproportionate distribution of weather patterns leading to a very unstable climate must all be individually addressed. our government supports the development of a green economy through the private sector. we have been promoting the

concept of corporate. in order to please their environmentally sensitive customers. in exercising their corporate social responsibility, these companies can open up employment opportunities while increasing -- while exercising their corporate responsibility by investing in environmental initiatives. do we believe that we can reduce our carbon emissions by 100% by 2050 through efficient communication with the private sector that is willing to act responsibly for the adversed environments through taxation and carbon trading? we believe 100% that it is a responsibility. insurance companies that lose millions after natural disasters are now willing to invest their money into environmental issues that mitigate the affects of climate change. our government has every

intention of expand our technological sources a and implementing energy efficienty within these environment yamcompanies. we have kpresds interest in renewable energies. to invest in biofuels. this would include into not limited to providing heat, lighting, and motor power. the changes that we must make would not happen overnight. it would definitely take some time. however with proper communication, education and implementation and working through the private sector, it can be a realistic goal with a collective and a democratic approach. i strongly recommend for the honorable youth parliamentarians to have some fate and set some feasible and yet stringent goals as a employ you to vote here in motion to reduce our carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050. thank you very much, lord speaker. >> i now call the opposition

secretary of state for the environment. >> i'm from malawi and representing the progressive youth alliance. lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians other you'd all agree with me that climate change is not negotiable. and in fact nobody gambles with their own life. it's an issue survival. also if this house would agree with me that climate change does not only pose as a threat in obtaining the mggds but sustaining economic growth and development that is obtained during the years of our -- honorable parliamentarians, climate change has not since been given the credit that it deserves. it has effects on all leading sectors such as agriculture, trading industry, energy, in what leads in our economy. and also regard iing its

implications. lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, what we see here is a proposed motion that has little substance and does not deliver fully and respond to climate change in the commonwealthland. therefore, i would condition curwith the leader of opposition in his opening speech to maintain -- but however in the year 2040 and not 2050. this will mean that have a target of 40% of 2040. and 20% again in 2040. in addition, lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians it has to be -- that even if we cut our emissions today or even in 2040 by 100% carbon will still remain in the atmosphere for