representation. that is not a bad story to tell the era of reconstruction was a moment when african-americans had an opportunity to hold office. to recall how extraordinary that is, what it means to enter into citizenship from a state of servitude and move immediately into office-holding, happened more swiftly for enslaved black men than it did for white women who had been free for a very long time, but once they got the right to vote, there is a little bit longer lag in the states for white women becoming officeholders. it happened incredibly quickly between the mid 1860's and the unholy compromise in 1870 of hayes-tildon. there is a deep and profound yearning among people of color and other marginalized

individuals, not only four substantive representation of political interest, but also for demographic and descriptive representation. it is a reasonable yearning. it is one i am not quite sure i know how to describe except that there has only been one time where i felt an absolute feeling of the double-consciousness, the notion of what it means to be black in america, to be both black and american in the struggle that seeks to rend you apart. the only moment i felt it was not the inauguration. for one second, it seemed like there was no contradiction between the identity of blackness and the identity of americaness. by january 20, it was all over. [laughter] but there was a moment where this could go together. there is also something

potentially problematic that descriptive representation is so powerful that it might overcome substantive representation. these are the anxieties currently being expressed by some of my former princeton colleagues who believes that president barack obama's physical blackness is overwhelming is policy orientation vis a vis black communities. but i want you to remember that african-americans were republicans for 100 years. the republicans for 100 years long after there was little reason to be republican anymore. they were republican in numbers approaching 80%-90%. and a republican because of lincoln. the civil war cemented african americans to the republican party for a century and in near totality. the clarity with which that struggle created a sense of solidarity for african-americans could only be broken by the second struggle, which was the

struggle for full equality in the context of civil rights. then, in about a decade and a half, starting with the new deal, but was cemented with lbj -- became democrats. they became democrats with the same percentages and the same level of solidarity. race is part of that, but this is also for african americans an act that is responsive to the reality of the civil war and reconstruction. the notion that political power is actually not best wielded by splitting the votes between two parties and becoming a swing vote, but rather in rewarding a political party for its willingness to stand up for the

fundamental freedoms and rights of the community. [applause] as we look at how african- american voters behave, i think we have to be careful not to begin to denigrate black voters as somehow under the spell of a black president because a longer view of history shows us this is representative of how-to african-american voters have been made. my very final piece -- the way in which the civil war continues to give us a legacy for white racial politics. since the election of barack obama, exposed profound anxieties about american citizenship and its intersection with marginal identity. when i teach race in american politics, the first thing i do

is say to my classroom, "race is a social construction. it is not real." they nod their heads and they think to themselves, "she is not its." i can tell white people from black people from brown people. social construction, whatever. on saturday when i have to get my hair done, it does not feel like a social construction. if it feels like a biological reality because i cannot go to white hair salon. i have to go to an african- american hair salon. whatever on social construction. the 2008 presidential election was such an opportunity for me because i could actually show the hyper-social construction of a candid it. it was like those film strips from third grade where it would show an apple tree grow in like

seven slides. it goes really quickly. that is what like watching the social construction of barack obama's race was. it began in the primaries with the language of "barack obama is not black enough. he is insufficiently black. people with white mamas and african-american daddies are not sufficiently black. who goes to harvard? that is not black." [laughter] use of many americans say, "he is black. he was so white he could pass into the coup collapsed plan and gather intelligence information. by the way, he had a black daddy and a white mommy. all of that is very black." but then, of course, jeremiah right appeared on the scene. suddenly, barack obama was a way to black. he was so black. he was black, black, black,

black. he is not a black like that. most blacks are angry. he is not really angry. he is black, but not angry black. [laughter] [applause] but then, because we were in a post as 9/11 america, pretty soon the anxiety shifted from the question to inefficiently black to a question of islamic identity. he is a secret muslim. again, not only do we need educational history, we also need, perhaps, a religion lesson. it is not possible to be a secret muslim. [laughter] it is, in fact, possible to be a secret christian. all it requires is a profession of faith in your heart. you can profess it and simply walk around. [laughter] is long, you actually cannot be a secret muslim. it requires certain public acts.

if you are not engaging in those public acts, you are not muslim. of course, it is very difficult for us to have that sort of conversation. if we felt these moments beginning to emerge, but birth tourism brought them to their fourth run. maybe he was not to black, is visibly black, muslim, or not muslim, just clearly not american. not a citizen. this, i believe, is the reconstruction moment. this was, for me, the moment the reminded us that at the core of reconstruction was the definition of american citizenship. i just made this claim about the 14th amendment being the definitional moment for citizenship for all of us. i am not making a claim about whether or not printed at obama is a good president or a bad

precedent, whether or not he is effectively wielding power. i am only pointing out that the central anxiety that emerged within weeks -- i want you to remember that the april 2009 tea party rally in texas where the front runner, rick perry, suggested that secession was appropriate was april of 2009. barack obama was inaugurated to office in january of 2009. he might be a horrible precedent, but he was not in april. he could not have been. there was simply not enough

time. he may be an exceptional and great president, but he was not in april 2009. the speed with which the secession response and the birther response occurred means it was not about substance and policy, it could only be a reflection of the human being, the body that embodied the american presidency. remember that from the end of civil war in 1865 until the hayes-tilden compromise, blacks enjoyed power sharing. blackmun voted, held offices, organized as laborers and farmers, and there is a fragile political equality made possible only by the determined presence of the federal government. when in 1877 the federal government abdicated its responsibilities to new black citizens and removed itself from the south, it allowed

racial terrorist organizations to have a monopoly on violence, force, and coercion. the very definition of the state for nearly 100 years. the current tide emerging in 2009 of racial anxiety and secessionist sentiment feels like that moment that southerners call "redemption." that taking back of the south. in "birth of a nation," the film that princeton president, woodrow wilson, showed in the white house -- the film depicts a racist imagination that is currently at work. a kind of bigotry that assumes that no government could be legitimate if it is embodied and represented by black bodies.

so, those four. engagement with confederate nostalgic, the ways in which african-american voting is responsive to the realities of the civil war, and out rationalized anxieties directed toward the president have their roots in a reconstructed moment about what it meant to share power with the formerly enslaved. drawing parallels between the civil war in this moment does not mean that that moment = this moment historically. change across time is true. it is true for alan west to say he is the. tudman of the republican party. it is not true because it says

black folks in the republican party are on the plantation, it is because he is not enslaved. he is not subjugated in the ways slaves were. it is important to say "this is not that." when you look at images of lynching, remember that you can almost always see the faces of the lynchers. people in the public lynchings did not need to turn their heads from the cameras. they were not ashamed. there is a moment of progress when people turn their face away from the camera. it does not mean it did not occur, but shame over racism is, itself, a kind of progress that is worthy of marking. freedom is not slavery. the current prison industrial complex is horrible and not jim crow. it is something different and worthy of new theorizing.

but all of that still requires us to note the historical moments from when we emerged. jim crow points to a particular way of engaging the states, not because the current prison industrial complex is jim crow, but because we learn something about it from studying jim crow. we are not in reconstruction. we are not in redemption. there is an african-american president. i can give this lecture without fear of reprisal. those things are real, yet to remember that our country comes from somewhere, i think, is a critical moment in us engaging in this critical moment with more history. thank you. [applause]

>> those of you who have to leave right now, please do so quietly out of respect for the people who stay behind for the questions and answers. those of you who do, the ushers will be around to collect your questions and we will do the best we can to represent them. if i could take the privilege of this, you mentioned governor mcdonnell and the celebration of the secession period. within a fairly short period of time, because of the work of ed ayers at the university of richmond, and others, mcdonnell

issued an apology for that statement. i guess my question to you is, given all the misstatements of fact and this sort of rosy recollection, are there enough players at play, and is there enough light on them that there is a response to these things that has effective traction in the public consciousness? >> this goes back to my point about the ways in which this moment is different and needs to be celebrated and recognized as different, even as we remain in struggle around these questions. the fact that we are appalled by it, the fact that it makes national news in a way that leads so many americans to pause and say, "wait a minute, it is inappropriate for us to talk about fighting for the confederacy as an equally patriotic choice as fighting

for the union?" it's inappropriate to erase the lives of black americans or to pretend that slavery was not a part of this. i want to always be careful about celebrating resistance in and of itself, because the resistance is there as a requirement over and against the challenges, but i do think that we are clearly in a very different sort of moment of empowerment now than we would have previously seen. that said, elections matter, and although a news story like mcdonnell's april confederate history month gets exposed, the fact is that the sort of daily grindings of the general assembly often don't, and those mindsets are not exclusively cultural. they have very, very real policy implications that we often don't pay as much attention to, so the election of someone like mcdonnell, the revelation of that sort of

confederate nostalgia in mcdonnell's own perspective, then ends up having an impact in the sorts of policies that govern a state like the commonwealth. >> can you respond on why the south perpetuates the civil war nostalgia, i.e. keeps fighting the civil war? it seems to this person, as a native new yorker who's adapted the wouth as their home, that this is what's going on. >> a couple of things. it's definitely not just the south. i mean, the south has an engagement with it that is more both imminent and more visceral. when you say, "the war" or "after the war" in most places, you mean world war ii, but when you say "the war" or "after the war" in many parts of the south, you are referring to the civil war. that's sort of part of the

cultural rhythm of the space. i have been most frightened when i have seen the stars and bars, the rebel flag, displayed in indiana and in downstate illinois, actually more afraid when i see it there than when i see it in south carolina, in part because in illinois or in indiana, because it isn't part of any historic moment of specificity -- it can only be about a kind of aggressive, racial statement. when my civil rights husband is wearing it, he is wearing it with all kinds of mixed, difficult, messy meanings, but when it's flying out of a notre dame dorm room, then it just really feels like it's about one thing. the sense for me of the need of the south to think of the

confederacy as an equally patriotic choice, i believe, is about shame. post-world war ii germany is a fascinating study in how a defeated nation with a moral and ethical dilemma addresses the problem of national shame. we were in germany during the world cup last year, and people kept apologizing to my husband and to me for flying the german flag. they were saying, "we don't normally behave this way. we don't normally fly the german flag this way. don't take it as an act of aggressive nationalism. it's just about the world cup." of course, americans are pretty aggressive flag wavers and usa chanters and that sort of thing, so i hadn't noticed it as troubling or problematic, but for my german hosts, there was still a sense of what it meant to be shrouded in a kind of national german shame in a post-holocaust, post-world war ii europe.

part of the way that the defeated confederacy dealt with its collective shame around the loss of that war was to revise and rewrite that history as though they had in fact not lost it, or if they had lost it, that it was a great injustice to have lost the war. it's part of why slavery gets written out of the story, because you don't want to say, "it's really too bad that you're not my slave anymore." it is a regional shame that continues repeatedly, but we keep shaming the south. that is one of the reasons i have started this new center. it is the idea that every

meaningful thing occurs between d.c. and boston, and if you cannot get it west of the hudson, it might as well be california. south of the mason-dixon it might as well be brazil, so part of it is that we consistently be paid as though the only backwardness is occurring in the south, even as it becomes the center of labor-stripping rights. we do not talk about that as a midwest problem. what is wrong with those midwesterners? we do continual to shame the south and that way. >> there are several questions, and basically what they're all asking is could you give -- familiarize people more with what the process was about? >> i was not sure how much the real historians had done on this, but from the end of the

civil war until the election of 1876, the union armies were occupying the former confederate state. in their occupation of the former confederate states, they were ensuring black citizenship was protected, that they could vote, hold office, that some nominal level of integration were beginning to occur, even some integration populist political movements were beginning to occur. of course there were many white port workers who did not benefit from a system of slavery. you could imagine the economic solidarity with formerly enslaved people. in 1876 you basically had something very equivalent to the

bush/gore election of 2000, a contested election with the question of who had shrewdly one this? had the republican won it, or have the democrats want it? and this case the democrats is the party of the confederacy. the republican party made a choice at that point to a compromise and allow that as long as their candidate was allowed to except the u.s. presidency, they would do so under the condition of ending reconstruction in the south. in this moment of contestation, it was a clear who won? the republican party cut a deal, and the deal was a white haze take the white house and he will withdraw with union trip -- -- let hayes take the white house and he will withdraw.

the end of reconstruction, the end of the project of the union armies in the south, you begin to see the imposition of jim crow. it does not start in the 1860's or '70s. it is really in the 1890's that we begin to see the imposition of jim crow, local former confederate states pushing to see how far can we go? how far will the federal government go in rolling back the voting rights and the economic rights of these new black citizens to. it is why you end up with plessey be ferguson defining a separate but equal, which it celebrates this process of jim crow, so that by 1905 in most of the u.s. south, you have a fully segregated by law system that does not get overturned, a least

until the 1950's. >> i do not know how you do this briefly, but here you go. property and voting rights took a backseat to abolition and the war. women played a major role in the anti-slavery movement as frederick douglass did. how do women rights and civil rights interacted -- interact historically and politically? >>[laughter] >> it is so interesting to hear the question phrased in quite that way. i have talked a bit about the double consciousness between blackness and americanist, but there is also the fact they never imagined the complications of gender overlaid across the other identities, and rarely fought very much about class or geography or those questions.

no one's hands are entirely clean on the question of the intersection between white women's rights and black rights. i do not want to call is all right, because the -- because i think it is the broad category that is everybody. they are so rights, because they are writes about who we are as citizens under the law. women's rights are civil-rights, it is just the civil-rights movement of the mid 20th- century created a discourse where we think civil-rights focuses exclusively on race. at every point -- i think this goes back to my point about the federal was papers, but we are engaged in political process these. they are not pure comedy logical movements where coming forth from the minds of good people

are new policies. at every point white women in their engagement for suffrage were trying to think about the arguments they needed to make in order to get suffrage. there were points at which they may profoundly troubling racial arguments in racist arguments in their efforts for suffrage, how dare you give the vote to these beasts of burden, and not your daughters and wives. are reasonable argument, but troubling. similarly those who were fighting for universal male suffrage often made those arguments in language that on one hand we wanted the extension, but was made in these clearly into women's language around suffrage. this story about how the 15th

amendment becomes an amended just to extend a suffrage and not women's suffrage is also reflected in our current politics are around the painful process of the hillary clinton /barack obama primary fight and the ways in which the hillary clinton primary fight forces us to ask whispers, whose turn is it, who was next? . we never really imagined like let's get rid of the white guys. no more returns for them. there is consistently in notion there are limited resources that all the marginal groups have to battle together. i will make a quick point about the supreme court here. please tell me justice o'connor

has gone. [laughter] i do a little pot experiments with my students, and we were doing this in the context of the presidency. winners during radio this morning and was asked if i ever thought there was a black president. it is not a very powerful office, have been dreamed of a black president, but nothing i was striving for. my fantasy is around the supreme court. this will tell you a bit about were the limitations are and a matching citizenship are. i want you to remember that the supreme court operates on the basis of decisions now. that means when we think about the court, we not -- we cannot think about it in the temporary moment, in a snapshot. the court is the entire court going all the way back to the

beginning. that is the court. it is the accumulation of all of the decision. if we were to think about gender parity on the court, gender parity cannot be achieved by half the court being female. gender parity would have to beat the entire court being female for some hundred plus years. [laughter] and i make no assumption that an all-woman court would have any particular ideological viewpoint. it is not that that would therefore create processes -- progressivism. the very idea that we could leave women alone in a room with no grownups to make decisions -- [laughter] about the constitution, but i

will push you, because i will not allow you to leave this court in the mind of the court of law woman. i want you to make everyone in black and latino. i want you in your head to imagine what it would mean for 100 years to help a court of exclusive women of color, and then -- then i want you to make all of those women day. -- gay. [laughter] it that seems like the craziest thing you have heard, i want you to remember our current constitutional interpretation rest and reside on choices made by all white male heterosexual courts. that is precisely the america we live in coming in our inability to do anything other than to imagine that is indicative of the fact that we're not quite prepared to say that we're women

of color, for example, are equally capable of exercising citizenship without oversight. >>[applause] >> as tempting as it is to end with that, there is a point here that i think does require clarification. this question is, are you suggesting the 14th amendment gives the executive branch of the federal government the unilateral authority to incur debt? >> i am not. i thought that president obama using the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling was an impeachment battle waiting to happen. i assumed that the goal was to get president obama to do that so that impeachment proceedings could begin. when president clinton, who i respect for a ton of reasons, came out and said i would not

hesitate to use the 14th amendment, i was like of course you would not, because whatever you think about president clinton, you have to appreciate this man was impeached in did that leave. he was like, so what? [laughter] i work here. i actually assumed that if president obama -- there was a lot of calls to be tough, use your spine. i think at that president done it, impeachment articles would have been brought by the house. i do not think he would've been removed by the u.s. senate, but it would have been allowing for weapons of mass destruction. i would leave whether or not the 14th amendment grand power to constitutional interpretation. what i would suggest is that

clearly what it is doing there, even as it is defining citizenship, is also making a claim about the responsibilities of the state. whether or not but gives the executive power, that is a different question. it certainly says the state, the collective identity, has a responsibility to pay debt. >> ladies and gentlemen, melissa harris. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow we take a look at poverty in america. the demographics of who was living in poverty and how the base of party has changed since the economic downturn and how it

is has measure. we will talk about poverty programs in the efficacy in reducing poverty. we will hear about one of the many community programs designed to fight poverty and how they partner with government. "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. to go ahead of the american association of university professors as tenure and academic freedom are in jeopardy. >> tenure creates an atmosphere on campus where people can speak freely, not just in their teaching, but also in terms of university governance. if you do not like a proposal the president makes, you have to be able to speak freely about it. administers should be able to speak freely about that as well. without that, you really do not have the expertise or the faculty available to you. >> carry nelson sunday night on

c-span q&a. >> oral argument is the first time the justices talk about a case together, and so when it justice scalia or justice ginsburg asked a question, i can figure out what is bothering them about a case and where they are leaning. >> by law, the new supreme court begins the first monday in october. each year hearing almost 70 cases. this year cases are ready include ups tracking without a warrant, profanity on television. it is washington your way. >> earlier this month, 100 members of the british commonwealth youth department, it ages 18 to 29 gathered in the house of lords for a debate on

crime and change. -- on climate change. the speaker of the house of lords presided over the two hour debate. tobego. this debate in the british house of lords is two hours. >> i'm delighted to welcome you here to the 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 thate 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 freeor all so that you will alhave a chance to put your views and have a comment and you can ask questions of the speakers. the most importantthing, the most important thing, is that you all keep to time. and i thin 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 fabri 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. thiss 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 h remarks and f 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% reducti 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 comnts 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 surprise the prime minister didn't choose to mention that. these e ways, of course, of holding such a sta 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 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 hrd 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 devopment mechanism. china's taken a similar the 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 must see in this debate that it will not be solely a focus on energy emissions, but also business, and we will acknowledge significant contributions from the non- energy sector. we did not hear a lot about that, either. my party is the progress of force in this chamber. beyond any claims the prime minister may make, my party believes in this proposal. our manifesto said it and i will deliver it. and iill 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 theouth 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 emissns 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 emission 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 an 50 years old, we need to show other developed countries that it is possible to reduce

our own emissns. 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 withs 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. anladies 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 researchn what sort of action can be done from

top and from the bottom to improve our climate change situatio 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 hum 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 om 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 sid 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 chber, 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 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 surviv 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 ssible. 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 incentiv and magnifying national insentives to our local community and ourusinesses to make this happen. this would mean working together with our younger geration, 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 througho 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. lo 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,ord speaker. >> the colleague there. >> hello. my name is tanya sorris. i would liketo 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 rmind 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 horable 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 alsoentions 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 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 unpdictable weather, rising seas, warmer temperatures and polluted atmosphere something we want to pass onto futuregenerations? i think not,load. this gernment 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 e 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 iso 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 preped? will our global economy that's already beensuffering 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 futu 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, wenow that in the coming decades we will fac 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. >>avid 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 os 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, ld 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' just keep increasing. i a a human being have faith in us. we have 39 years to make a dierence. 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 pan on nuclear disarmament? how many countri listened to norway when preaching peace? i put it to you, ladies and gentleme that we are debating the wrong issue. there will come a time, and maybe it is now, for innovation to reduce r carbon footint. 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 no 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 moon. 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 belie in allowing busess to adapt. i believe in the need for

certainty. i 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 d set realistic targets. realistic goals that inspire novation 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 rection target from at least 80% in the climate chan 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 couny, 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 itiate 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 205 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 ed 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,e'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 lookat this sma 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' 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 wan to mention the fact that of key importance is to gain the individual suppo 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 tohange behavior within the country. that is one iportant 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 tha 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. 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 e 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. ananother 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 reducti 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 lta. 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 i urgent and it is growing. and when generations respond to this challengee'll be judged by our future generations. so it is o 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, tranortation, 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 basin 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 baffle lord speaker, frankly, by the term marrity of some in th 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 honable 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 der to achieve it we need to smudge the lines between the private sector and the public sector and ha 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 ve ticulately 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 aery important issue. i beeve that to remain competitive in the world economy 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, rdener, 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, thanyou. 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 w out of this problem by promoting growth within our green industries. i'm seeking to employ as many young people as poible. 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, mam 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 a to stop it was yesterday. and if we don't change our act now, w 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 th 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 thain our youthwe 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 belie 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 iust 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. thats 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 infoation that are available. by young people that are bullied and later denies if they dare asquestions 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 onlyroblem, 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 emission 100% and in

other paths? looking at sboev this decision. make sure that everyone -- 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. astand 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 scuss 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

stng 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 -- t environment yamcondition. a reduction of use of -- unless invest in energy. we have reduced carbon emission. more important, my fellow colleaes, 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 hel 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 hous is in disarray and lack a common agenda. emissions by 2050 which we on

the opposite si have actually talked about 2040, we believe that all the -- have to be addressed. the government for once has never mentied -- 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. >> thegentleman 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 here. they were in search of a better life. i was honorary fellowsp 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 reall 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 screen 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 collectivelyogether 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 targetand 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 alistic targets. i would like to put to you that 100% by 2040 is just simply unrealistic for -- political policy forcing action changes behavior by making people unable to afford to engage in behaviors that increase carbon in the environment. pe