asked Her Majesty's Government:

What are their projections for the level of United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 on a business-as-usual basis; and what proportion those emissions would constitute of global emissions on the same basis.

My Lords, the Government intend to reduce emissions radically by 2050, but one cannot accurately predict economic and technological conditions 40 years ahead. Nevertheless, analysis for the 2007 energy White Paper suggests that, without its additional policies, the UK's emissions in 2050 could be around 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which would correspond to between 0.7 and 1.5 per cent of global emissions in scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency.

My Lords, is it not extraordinary that we should at this stage be introducing a unilateral, unconditional requirement on this country to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when no other country is committing to do the same, to the degree of 80 per cent, even though we account only for the insignificant amount of 1.5 to 1.7 per cent of total emissions? In pursuit of this absurd and masochistic policy for this country, has the Minister's department made an estimate, as it should have done, of how big an increase in energy prices for business, industry and the consumer will be required to achieve this objective?

My Lords, there will be some costs attendant on the transfer of energy production, but there are also huge opportunities. The noble Lord seemed to indicate that only the United Kingdom was concerned about global emissions, but he will appreciate that the European Union has its target. He will recognise that the new Administration of the United States are also taking Kyoto seriously. In that context, being in the lead, which is where Britain intends to be under this Government, will reap rich rewards in terms of opportunities for producing the technologies for the future.

My Lords, does not the strategy of the Government, whose carbon targets are supported by these Benches, go broader than just carbon emissions and mean that this country and its economy will be ahead in energy security, and ahead of the problems that will arise out of peak oil and peak gas?

My Lords, we have to have energy security in mind. We recognise that, with the reduction in our indigenous resources in the North Sea, we will become increasingly dependent on sources from elsewhere if we are not careful. There is no doubt that the Government's green energy strategy helps to increase the levels of self-sufficiency of energy generation in this country.

My Lords, bearing in mind the huge technological changes of the last 50 years, I note that the Question asks about a "business-as-usual basis". Do the Government assume there will be no further great technological changes in emissions in the next 50 years?

My Lords, the Government will do their utmost to promote those technological changes which are of benefit to both the people of the United Kingdom and the world as a whole. That is why we are encouraging, for instance, the development of motor-car transport beyond the internal combustion engine. My noble friend will recognise the rewards already for those companies that have advanced down this track and the costs borne by those that have not responded.

My Lords, given the Government's abilities to forecast what has happened over the past 42 months, what confidence does the Minister have in the Government's capabilities to make economic forecasts over the next 42 years?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right about projections, though he will have noticed that in my opening statement I indicated the difficulties of projecting the position 50 years on. It is less difficult to project the degree of temperature growth from carbon emissions over that period if we do nothing. In that, we are dependent not on UK internal resources but on world scientific analysis and resources, which of course countries take seriously.

My Lords, in a Written Statement last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Myners cites the first auction in the second round of the Emissions Trading Scheme in the UK. He says:

"Four million allowances were offered for sale ... at a total value of £54 million",—[Official Report, 20/11/08; col. WS 96.]

but that it was "four times oversubscribed". Surely if it were four times oversubscribed, the price would have gone up rather than the sale being at a fixed price.

My Lords, that is a fairly complex question from my noble friend—I emphasise the last word. The Government wish to encourage participation in the development of the new technologies and the new opportunities. In pricing those opportunities, we will not get everything right on every occasion. I hope my noble friend will accept, however, that the Government ought to err on the side of encouragement of the new developments, because nothing could be worse than failing to take the opportunities provided to us.

My Lords, I am all for being market leader in the right green and other environmental technologies, but the European Union is now considering drawing back from its original target of 20 per cent renewables by 2020 on the grounds that this will be highly uncompetitive unless the whole world goes in the same direction. Has the fact that it is rowing back from its target while we seem to be stuck on the previous target influenced government thinking in any way?

My Lords, I do not think that the EU is rowing back, but the adjustments being made are a reflection of the difficulties of adjustment in some of the European economies. That does not alter the fact that there is a need to reduce carbon emissions. The European Community is well aware of that. A further adjustment might well take place against a background of a new perspective in the United States, which will give a whole new dimension to the Kyoto targets. Therefore, for Britain to be in the lead in this area is something on which I hope we can take the opposition Front Bench with us.

My Lords, has the noble Lord's department yet come up with any answers to Mr Christopher Booker's doubts about global warming, as expressed in his excellent column in the Sunday Telegraph? For instance, does it accept that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies found that last month was the warmest October on record simply by repeating the September temperatures for October? Is it not time that the lemmings of global warming started to wonder whether they are rushing in the right direction?

My Lords, the noble Lord is far too wise to examine one month's changes and regard that as indicative of global warming one way or the other; he will know that the scientific basis for global warming is taken over decades. In fact, the real issue with global warming is its relationship to emissions since the development of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore the odd month or so of change—even 18 months or a couple of years—is, in scientific terms, neither here nor there.