The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 4 in the name of Julie James, amendment 2 in the name of Neil McEvoy, and amendment 3 in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected.

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on climate change and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.

Motion NDM6835 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2. Notes the report's conclusion that governments must take urgent and far-reaching action by 2030 in order to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees celsius.

3. Notes that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee has found that the Welsh Government is likely to fail to reach its targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to report back to the Assembly on what significant action it will take in response to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

5. Believes that those actions should include:

a) a fracking ban in Wales;

b) abandoning the M4 black route plan and investing in more sustainable solutions to solve M4 capacity problem in the area;

c) a significant increase in investment in retrofitting housing and strengthening building regulations to achieve the objective of near-zero energy buildings; and

d) establishing a national energy company to help achieve the goal of generating as much electricity as is consumed in Wales from renewable energy by 2035, investing profits in better services and prices for clients.

6. Calls on the Welsh Government, the National Assembly for Wales and other public organisations in Wales to be part of the global movement to disinvest in fossil fuels.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Discussing the weather is something that we as Welsh people delight in doing and, of course, 2018 has been of huge pleasure to many people when it comes to the weather. We recall the snow and cold weather at the beginning of the year, the endless rain of the spring, one of the hottest summers on record, and storm Callum in the autumn bringing a month’s worth of rain in two days. Across the world, the story is the same, with increasing examples of extreme weather, among other signs that the climate is changing.

A few weeks ago, a report by the IPCC was published, and this wasn't just another report to make some cheap headlines, but the high point of work that saw input from thousands of climate scientists from across the globe. The message in that report is entirely clear: time is running out. Time is running out to make the changes to our way of life, how we produce and use energy, how we travel around this earth, how we build and warm our homes, how we use our natural resources. Because the trajectory that we’re on in terms of global warming means that unless we change our ways then the implications will be damaging and extreme—not just more flooding, but whole states disappearing underwater because of increases in sea level; not just more drought, but more starvation on an international level; widespread disappearance of species and an environment that is far more challenging to life on this earth.

The conclusion of the report, of course, is that Governments do have to take urgent action on a far-reaching level by 2030 in order to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. There’s no doubt now, in my view, that this is the greatest challenge facing humanity. We all recall the discussion at the UN convention on climate change in Paris in 2015 that we had to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius and that efforts should be made to limit it to 1.5 degrees. What the IPCC report tells us now is that global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. Any element of warming beyond that would bring risks of long-term and irreversible changes, with whole ecosystems being lost.

What this report doesn’t do to the same extent, of course, is to outline exactly what each of us needs to achieve in order to deliver the necessary change. It’s a matter for wider society, of course, and we as politicians have a key role in creating that other environment—the policy environment and the funding environment that will facilitate much of the change that needs to be seen.

Our motion today notes that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee here at the Assembly has come to the conclusion that the Government is likely to fail to reach its targets for reducing carbon emissions by 2020. The purpose of this motion, therefore, is to call on the Welsh Government to outline what major steps it will take in response to the IPCC report. We of course are taking the opportunity to outline some of the things that we as a party feel should be done—not everything; it falls a long way short of that—as part of the transformation that is required in the face of these climate change challenges. They include, of course, action in terms of energy, transportation, housing, and some of the sectors that contribute most to carbon emissions.

We need to tackle energy from both directions, of course—first of all, we need to reduce the usage of energy and then increase the amount of energy produced from renewable sources. The sustainability committee of the last Assembly, in its report 'A Smarter Energy Future for Wales', called for creating annual targets to reduce the demand for energy, and it’s disappointing that that hasn’t seen a positive response. It also called for more help for people to use energy more efficiently, and I will expand upon that in just a moment.

I've talked in this Chamber before, of course, of how Plaid Cymru wants to see the establishment of a national energy company for Wales that would assist in our aim of ensuring that as much energy as is consumed in Wales is produced from renewable sources by 2035. That's ambitious but it’s also achievable. Other nations are moving far more quickly than us on this agenda. Germany, for example, has committed that by 2050 it will ensure that 80 per cent of all its energy will come from renewable sources, and, more than that, that, by the same year, it cuts the use of energy in buildings by 80 per cent, and creates millions of jobs, and adds to its GDP. It's a transformational programme that shows the way forward for many of us. It’s also worth looking at how somewhere like Uruguay, which has a population similar to Wales, has managed to ensure, in a period of less than 10 years, that 95 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources—of course reducing its carbon footprint, but also reducing bills for its people simultaneously. So, they have shown that, with vision and determined leadership, it’s possible to make significant and swift progress towards a low-carbon economy.

I strongly believe in placing the community at the heart of energy policy. I’ve spoken many times of the need to move away from the hub-and-spoke model of producing energy in large power stations that are centralised and then transferring that across the country via an old grid that is ineffective and expensive. We need to move to a model of local grids, which are smarter, with the energy being produced closer to where its consumed—in the community by the community—and networks that are more efficient, often more resilient, less damaging to the landscape, which is something that is regularly discussed in this Chamber, and also cheaper in terms of maintenance costs.

Producing renewable energy is one thing, but, as I mentioned earlier, we also need to reduce our use of energy, and that is at the heart of the task facing us. With homes in the UK spending 80 per cent of their energy costs on heating rooms and water in the home, then improving efficiency standards in new housing and improving the efficiency of our existing housing stock by retrofitting is crucially important. I did expand upon this in a previous debate, so I won’t rehearse those points. But whilst plans such as Arbed and Nest do contribute, certainly, to this task, they are relatively small contributions. Certainly, they don’t get anywhere near the scale of the challenge facing us and the level of investment required, if truth be told. That’s why, of course, as I explained earlier, there has been a commitment in the Plaid Cymru manifesto to invest billions of pounds over two decades to meet that challenge through a national infrastructure commission for Wales. That’s the level of ambition we need.

The motion refers to a fracking ban. I remember, in a previous stint as Plaid spokesperson on this subject, in a video message, saying that two things had to happen in order to achieve a real ban on fracking: first of all, that the power should be devolved to allow us to take that decision, and, secondly, that this Assembly desired that to happen. Well, those things are now in place, and despite a moratorium that wasn’t a moratorium—and I will say that whilst I have breath; I know that the Government disagrees, but it wasn’t a moratorium—it’s good to see the Government now moving, hopefully, in the direction of a real fracking ban.

Transport is another important area in the battle to reduce carbon emissions, and if there is one iconic case that will be a litmus test for this Government then it’s the decision on the black route for the M4. One of my fellow Members will expand on this in a few moments' time, but proceeding with the black route would mean more vehicles on the road and less likelihood that Wales will meet its climate change targets. We had confirmation just yesterday from the leader of the house that the vote will be a binding vote. What many people on the Government backbenches want to know, I assume, is whether that will be a free vote, or an un-whipped vote, because a decision by this Assembly not to proceed with the black route and to invest in alternative options would be a clear statement that we are entirely serious about Wales’s role in tackling emissions and climate change. And that’s also the message that would be sent by clause 6 of our motion, namely that the Welsh Government, the National Assembly for Wales and other public organisations in Wales would be part of the global movement to disinvest in fossil fuels. That would be a sign of the joint responsibility that we all have in tackling climate change.

And I will conclude for the time being just by making one final point. In the past, people have linked reducing carbon emissions with somehow having to limit growth and productivity—that it’s a barrier to the growth of business. Well, consider this statistic: in the period that Britain has reduced emissions by 40 per cent, productivity and growth have increased 70 per cent. That shows clearly that we can disengage growth from emissions. One doesn’t have to go hand in hand with the other anymore as it did in the past.

The OECD has stated that taking action on climate change will be a boost to economic growth, not only in avoiding the impacts of climate change, and there will be significant cost to those impacts, but also in investing in clean, efficient, innovative, new technologies, and if you think of the retrofitting of homes as one example: creating jobs and economic savings on the one hand; creating social benefits on the other by tackling fuel poverty; and creating clear environmental benefits by reducing emissions. Innovation and technology will assist us in going further and further in years to come as new developments hasten that process.

Therefore, whilst climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity today, a challenge that brings serious threats, in order not to finish on too negative a note, we do have to bear in mind that tackling climate change brings opportunity too, not just the clear environmental opportunities, but also economic and social opportunities too. But what this motion questions, if truth be told, is: to what extent are we willing to face that challenge and to what extent are we willing to grasp those opportunities? The message is clear from the IPCC. We are not passing that test at the moment. Wales has to raise its game or it’s our children who will pay the price.

Thank you. I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move formally amendments 1 and 4, tabled in the name of Julie James?

Amendment 1—Julie James

Delete point 3 and replace with:

Notes the evidence that shows the challenges for Wales in delivering the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 commitments of at least 80 per cent emission reductions by 2050.

Amendment 4—Julie James

Delete point 5 and replace with:  

Notes Welsh Government action to date on climate change including:

a) setting interim targets and carbon budgets for Wales and development of the first low-carbon delivery plan.

b) publication of draft petroleum extraction policy for consultation.

c) recently announced plans for a new £5 billion rail service which will lead to a 25 per cent reduction in carbon emissions on the Wales and Borders network and plans to develop a new Wales Transport Strategy that can support an integrated, multi-modal and low-carbon transport network across Wales.

d) invested more than £240 million in the Welsh Government Warm Homes programme, which includes Nest and Arbed, improving the energy efficiency of more than 45,000 homes and agreed further investment of £104 million for the period 2017-2021.

e) having commenced a review of part L of the building regulations to increase the required energy efficiency of new homes.

f) setting a target for 70 per cent of Welsh electricity consumption from renewables by 2030, with a range of Welsh Government actions supporting an increase to 48 per cent in 2017.

Amendments 1 and 4 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 2, tabled in his own name.

Amendment 2—Neil McEvoy

Insert as new point after point 3:

Opposes the use of nuclear power as a means to combat climate change.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. My amendment is very simple. This Assembly for Wales:

'Opposes the use of nuclear power as a means to combat climate change.'

I put the amendment forward because I wanted to give every Member of this Assembly a vote for or against nuclear power. I also want the public to be able to hold each one of us for account on nuclear power. I've always been anti-nuclear, but the Hinkley nuclear mud campaign has made me into an anti-nuclear activist now.

With my sovereignist hat on, I would say that Wylfa B is unaffordable for a future sovereign Wales. I was pleased last week to welcome Japan Friends of the Earth here, and I was lucky enough to meet and speak to a person from Fukushima. They could not understand why Wales is accepting nuclear energy technology from Hitachi in Japan. They spoke of the mass evacuation from Fukushima on the day of the accident, and pointed out that it would be impossible for 80,000 people to be evacuated from Ynys Môn with just two bridges. So, the question is: if Wylfa B goes ahead, what would be the evacuation plan if the unthinkable happened? The reality is there could be no evacuation for most people.

On television on Monday night, one of the candidates to be Labour leader admitted that there would be a risk with developing a new nuclear power station on Anglesey. But he said that we shouldn't talk about that risk when, actually, we really need to. The waste from nuclear power also poses huge problems for our future generations, and nuclear power also poses health risks at the present time. 

In 2003, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection commissioned research that found that people living within 5 km of German nuclear reactors suffered a 1.61 increased ratio for all cancers, and an increased ratio of 2.19 in leukaemia amongst all children. Now, Members here should be aware of the leukaemia cluster around Hinkley Point, with the evidence provided by Professor Barnham. Well, in Germany, the Government shut down eight nuclear reactors and are phasing out all nuclear reactors by 2022. 

Nuclear is not environmentally friendly. There is a much higher carbon cost than for renewables, but the cost is front-loaded. In addition, the Oxford Research Group predicts that by 2050, each nuclear power station will generate as much carbon as gas-powered stations, as the grade of available uranium ore decreases. Now, we have great natural resources in Wales: wind, water, a coastline. Nuclear power is a distraction from what we should be doing, and that is developing renewable energy. The sovereign Parliament of Iceland legislated to use their natural resources to produce energy. And a future sovereign Welsh parliament could do the same. Wales could be fully sustainable with renewable energy, and it’s the people of Wales who should decide energy policy in this country.

To go back to the main point, my amendment states that this Assembly for Wales:

'Opposes the use of nuclear power as a means to combat climate change.'

What do you think?

Thank you. Can I call on David Melding to move this amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar?

Amendment 3—Darren Millar

Delete point 5 and replace with:

5. Welcomes the Welsh Conservatives' white paper, 'Liveable Cities', which puts forward proposals to mitigate the causes and effects of climate change including:

a) making Cardiff the UK’s first carbon-neutral capital city;

b) installing air pollution monitors in all schools and nurseries in Wales;

c) introducing a smart-homes initiative to support micro and neighbourhood energy schemes that want to generate, store and transport their own energy;

d) committing to a target of 20 per cent urban tree canopy cover by 2030;

e) incentivising and encouraging green roofs on commercial developments in Wales; and

f) introducing a green card which will give free bus travel to all 16-24 year olds in Wales.

Amendment 3 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I do move amendment 3 in the name of Darren Millar. And can I thank Plaid Cymru, and Llyr Gruffydd in particular, for tabling today’s motion? I think it is a very important debate, and we’ve heard, in fairness, two very passionate contributions. And it’s hardly surprising, given the challenges that we now know we face from indisputable scientific evidence. The UK Committee on Climate Change has observed that progress remains a long way short of the Welsh Government’s existing targets to reduce emission levels to 40 per cent below their 1990 level by 2020. And, there are reasons for this; it’s not something we can just beat the Government with, and Wales has a heavy burden from its former industrial past, and we still have a very high share of the heavy industry that remains in the United Kingdom. But this isn’t a get-out-of-jail card or free pass either. So, I think we need to ensure that this debate brings a bit of energy, if I can use that word, and doesn’t just become lacklustre, but we come and present our own alternatives where we think the Government is falling short, and that’s what I intend to do this afternoon.

There is much in the Plaid motion that I could agree with. Points 1 to 4 cause me no difficulty, but I don’t agree with everything that’s in point 5. I’m sure this doesn’t surprise you, hence our amendment. If I can just look at some specifics, on the M4, I think we do need to wait for the inquiry report on what route should be chosen, if we do want a massive road scheme there. And, this is quite rightly a contestable area, and we should have a very thorough debate on this. But it might be justified, and we certainly need to hold an open mind on it.

In terms of nuclear, this is obviously Neil’s amendment rather than Plaid’s motion. We don’t believe you can just say nuclear is not part of the mix. We think it is, because it’s needed particularly in its back-up role for sustainable renewable sources to be there, because they do fluctuate and we need that sort of constant back-up for 20 per cent or so, in the foreseeable future, anyway, until we get a better means of delivering that. So, for that reason, we do not support your amendment.

Then, on fracking, we acknowledge that there are justified scientific and technical concerns that clearly would need to be addressed before any scheme could go ahead. I have to say there is some danger of us being deflected from the drive to renewables by seeing cleaner fossil fuels. That again has to be faced—it's a real challenge—but I wouldn't remove it entirely from the mix. Some of you may have attended Swansea University's meeting, held here in the Senedd last month, which did look at waterless fracking and its benefits, and, indeed, I think Helen Mary Jones sponsored that event, though more in a previous role, if I can be discreet in describing it as such. So, let's just not say absolutely 'no'. Let's act on the evidence. That's what we're urging people to do, surely, in terms of climate change.

So, we would argue for a broad range of measures to rapidly reduce our carbon footprint, and some of the things we've emphasised we've packaged in our strategy for urban renewal, 'Liveable Cities', and, indeed, that constitutes the bulk of our amendment 3, because we do believe we need to make very rapid progress. We've heard that we've had global warming so far of one degree, and that if we do nothing we're going to have warming of over three degrees. As Martin Wolf says in today's Financial Times—and it is something when some of the best journalism is from the leading business paper—he just says: what will our descendants think? Well, they're likely to think along the lines of what we think about our ancestors who calmly sat back and did nothing about slavery. It will be seen in that sort of moral dimension, so we really have to get a move on and act quickly.

One of the things that we would like to see is Cardiff becoming the first city in the UK to be carbon neutral. A variety of European cities are pushing for this, and some hope to achieve it as early as 2025. So that's one specific. We would increase—

Would you take an intervention?

If I have time. I realise the Deputy Presiding Officer is much more indulgent than I ever was in these matters.

Yes, go on. Very quickly. [Laughter.] That makes sure that you will now.

You've made a great case for renewable energy, so do you therefore regret the removal of the feed-in tariff that the Conservatives brought in when they first took office?

What I note is that renewable energy is now becoming the market preference, and that is absolutely what we should be aiming for, and that is what these incentives were made to achieve.

I was going to finish with the point that we need more woodland and forests, including a strategy for 20 per cent urban canopy cover, and active travel, again, has to be a key element—active travel involving us all individually. That's a big part of the commitment. But despite not being able to fully support Plaid's motion, I do think that the push behind it for a powerful political consensus in Wales to help us radically reduce climate change is most welcome.

I think one of the biggest problems around the M4 relief road is how the Welsh Government can possibly square it with its ambition to achieve 43 per cent reduction in vehicle carbon emissions by 2030. If it goes ahead with the M4 relief road it would increase the number of vehicles by something like 42,000 vehicles a day. So, I do not understand how we could possibly achieve our climate change obligations and our targets in that respect if we were to go ahead with the M4 relief road. It might temporarily reduce congestion around Newport once it was built—they'd have to put up with an awful lot of congestion in the meanwhile—but it would massively increase the congestion in both Cardiff and further down the M4. I don't see how anyone can justify increasing congestion in Cardiff when we already have nine schools and several unnamed nurseries with illegal levels of air pollution, and we all know that there are very considerable health indications that are not good, particularly for young lungs. So, I very much feel that the M4 relief road, which was first mooted in 1991, is a twentieth-century solution that simply does not fit with the twenty-first century problems that we now face. It was mooted at a time when we were simply not as aware as we now are of the very serious and rapid change in our climate, and so I think we have to think again on that one.

I won't be supporting amendment 2. Nuclear policy is not devolved, so it doesn't hugely matter what the Assembly's position on it is, because this is decided by the UK Government. I, clearly, think that we should be using—. I disagree with David Melding on this, that we should be using nuclear as a back-up for renewables. I feel that gas ought to be playing that role, as a back-up, and I'm somewhat disturbed that gas is being burnt at the levels it is being burnt, because it is, obviously, a finite resource, and we should be using it more judiciously than we are at the moment. 

I pay a lot of regard to amendment 3. I think that there's a huge amount of attraction in the proposals that have been drafted by David Melding, and David Melding's ambition for our capital city as the first carbon-neutral capital city in the UK. The idea of installing air pollution monitors in all our schools and nurseries is one that I feel that the Welsh Government should be reaching out to and embracing.

I, absolutely, am committed to the idea of a 20 per cent urban tree canopy by 2030, because, obviously, that is one of the ways in which we can tackle the dreadful air pollution we've got. And, clearly, we should be incentivising people to put green roofs in any new construction or any new development, or any replacement roof. But, in order not to make the chief whip anxious, I'm afraid I won't be able to support amendment 3. But I, nevertheless, feel that we, collectively, ought to be reaching out to the excellent ideas that David Melding has proposed.

I think amendment 4 obviously indicates a lot of potential ideas, but these are ideas we should have been getting on with for some time now. The fact that we still only have the Part L revision of the building regulations in consultation, and people are continuing to build all these homes that are not connected with public transport, do not have active travel paths built into them, do not even have bus routes built into them. The Lisvane development and the old Llanedeyrn development on the edge of my constituency are cases in point, where it's going to massively increase the amount of congestion in my constituency. And, at the same time, we have Cardiff council considering closing alleyways, which are excellent places for people to cycle and walk, away from very busy, congested roads. This seems to be entirely the wrong direction of travel.

So, I would like to see some really chunky proposals for dealing with the congestion around Newport through much better public transport, and those are the sorts of things I want to see from our Government.

There are several paths that I could pursue this afternoon. The comments that Llyr Gruffydd made about the economic opportunities that would come from developing green industries and investing in retrofitting energy saving equipment in homes, and so on, is something that appeals to me, and is something that I spoke about when I had the economic role in the previous Assembly, but what I want to focus on, if I may, is transport specifically.

The climate change committee at the Assembly said recently that the Welsh Government faces a specific challenge here that stems from a number of major emitters of carbon dioxide in Wales. According to the committee: 

'There is therefore a need to maximise the impact of interventions to reduce emissions in other areas, such as transport'.

And it also mentions housing. That is, getting to grips with transport emissions is something that we can do here in the devolved world that we have, so we need to ensure that we push this to the maximum in terms of the potential that we have before us. Transport in 2014 accounted for 12.77 per cent of the total emissions in Wales, but over 21 per cent of the emissions within devolved competence. That is, the things that we can do something about, and transport is one of those things.

A report from the Institute of Welsh Affairs on decarbonisation of transport in Wales states that Wales is more dependent on the car than any other nation or region in the United Kingdom. That states clearly that we do have to do something about this and we do have to seek that modal change. We do talk a lot about it, but we are not making enough progress on it in terms of getting to grips with the problem that we are trying to tackle—in the most fundamental way, getting people out of their cars and onto their bikes or on foot. We have an active travel Act, but we’re not seeing the investment going in to support that legislation that we should be seeing. We see that around £10 per head per year is spent by the Welsh Government on active transport, whereas the Assembly’s economy committee has recommended expenditure between £17 and £20 per annum. Yes, people need to be persuaded to change their own culture in terms of the way that they travel from A to B, but let us give them that nudge through investing in infrastructure that makes that so much easier. We only have to look at the new Nextbike system in Cardiff. There’s been investment that’s gone into that and people are using those bikes, and I’m one of them. There is a sense here in Cardiff that there is a genuine feeling of change towards active travel and this needs to happen across Wales, not just in our capital city.

And we do have to move people onto the buses. The same report that I referred to earlier by the Institute of Wales Affairs states that bus services in Wales have been in significant decline over the long term. We do have to overturn that trend. We know where we need to invest in the railways. It’s of course a great disappointment that the UK Government hasn't invested and has only invested in electrification in the south. It’s appalling that electrification in the north isn’t on the agenda at all. We should be talking seriously, all of us, as we are doing in Plaid Cymru, about making that rail connection along the west of Wales—not just from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth, but from Aberystwyth through to Bangor. Yes, we need to open the railway across Anglesey. These projects are all there, we just need the ambition to pursue them. We were talking about this in questions earlier on: if you consider the £100 billion that’s being spent on HS2 in England, just imagine what we could do with a very small proportion of that total.

I’ll refer quickly to the M4. We agree that it would be a waste and would actually attract people to use their cars more. That’s what the black route would do. Yes, we do need a solution for the south-east, but we need to be clever and smarter in the way that we tackle that puzzle around the Brynglas tunnels.

Briefly, the attributes you ascribe to the black route can also be applied to the blue route, which you support. Would you be willing to reconsider your position on that?

What I said—I haven't readdressed this since taking the brief back, but what I've said in the past, and I’ll say it again, is we need to look at other potential answers to that quandary that we have in the south-east, including possibly something based on the blue route. I'm not aligned to the blue route as the gospel for resolving the issue that we do have. What I want to see more than anything is a shift of people onto public transport, but I do recognise that there is an issue to do with roads, too.

And also let me just, if I can, in finishing, say that we have to admit that, especially in rural Wales, the car will always be very, very important for individuals and families. That’s why I spend so much time and put as much effort as I can into promoting electric vehicles. That’s why we won £2 million in funding through discussions on the budget to kick-start investment in a charging network throughout Wales. So let’s make that shift and invest in hydrogen, too. I guess I haven't got time to take an intervention—

No, not a second intervention when the clock is red. Sorry. You carry on.

I'm sorry, I would have.

Let's be creative and let's use all tools at our disposal to make sure that we do our bit in Wales to tackle climate change.

A simple answer to Neil McEvoy: nuclear fission, no, nuclear fusion, yes. And I think that I still support us making further progress on turning hydrogen via nuclear fusion into energy.

But I really fully support the fracking ban in Wales. We can take climate change seriously and attempt to stop the world’s temperature increase, or we can support fracking. We can't do both. Fracking: you drill down into the earth, a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside; you send water, sand and chemicals into the rock at high pressure, and you can either do it vertically or horizontally. 

In a world short of clean water, is fracking a good idea? In the US, the United States Environmental Protection Agency found a median of 14 chemicals for each sample it took. The most common were methanol, hydrochloric acid and hydro-treated light petroleum distillates. Water contamination has been one of the biggest environmental concerns, and where some of the most best known incidents have occurred. An investigation by the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2016 that, in some cases, fracking had harmed drinking water supplies. Is that a risk we are prepared to take? 

Earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing have been another big concern. While the two earthquakes in 2011 that led to the UK’s fracking moratorium were both ranked minor on the Richter scale, the US has experienced much stronger ones. Oklahoma experts have reported a thousand years’ worth of quakes in two years because of fracking there. Is this a risk we want to take with the people of Wales and with our country? They've got a situation in Rebecca Evans's constituency where people have been considering fracking in that area. My constituents, as well as hers, are very much opposed to fracking taking place there. And if I don't want it to take place in my constituency or near my constituency, I don't want it to take place at or near anybody else's.    

On the M4 black route, I am a convincible sceptic. Is it serendipity that where on the M4 there are lots of junction close together and two lanes, we have traffic jams? Why is there a traffic problem on the M4 around Newport? I was once told by a Welsh Government Minister—not the Minister who will be replying—that it was because a lot of vehicles were using the road. Whilst that simplistic statement is obviously correct, what we really need to know is where they are moving between, why they are using the M4, and whether there are other alternatives in both mode of travel and route that can be used. Why do people, like myself, travelling west of Neath, coming from the west midlands and from the north of England, go all the way down to the M4 and turn right, rather than going across the Heads of the Valleys road? Is it because our sat navs send us that way? That in itself is a problem. You could reduce the number of people using the M4 if you had alternative routes, and people aren't using alternative routes. These are questions that need answering.

On the blue route, it will not work. Traffic does not generally leave a motorway for a distributor road. What can be done to reduce traffic at key times on the M4 around Newport? Can improved signage of other routes help? Will creating a new road create more traffic? This is without looking at the environmental damage and the cost of building it. We've seen the M25, which was a brilliant idea and which was going to take all the traffic problems around the south-east of England and put a stop to them. Well, I'm not quite sure that's actually worked. I think the M25 is often described as a very large car park.  

The value of a road is calculated by the time saved that is considered to be productive. For many people, including myself, if I leave 10 minutes later in the morning and go home 10 minutes earlier at night, all it achieves is 10 minutes extra in bed and 10 minutes longer reading the newspaper or watching television. Both are very good for me as an individual, but I'm not sure that either are productive for our economy.  

My view on retrofitting housing I went through in great detail. I think, really, strengthening building regulations to achieve the objective of near-zero-energy buildings. As I said in great detail earlier, most houses that people will be living in in 2050 are built now. In some areas, there will be more people in nineteenth century housing than twenty-first century houses, so we've got to retrofit. A report published by the Technology Strategy Board looked at the results of the Retrofit for the Future competition, which was co-ordinated by the board and facilitated the retrofit of more than 100 houses across the UK. The aim was to achieve an 80 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for each property involved in the programme, and to promote collaboration between housing providers, designers, contractors and researchers, while at the same time helping to stimulate new business opportunities to retrofit the market.

I think we really do need to have a co-ordinated approach, and one of the most important things is whether we can cut down on carbon emissions, and that means we have to travel less by car, and we also have to have housing that gives out zero carbon or very close to zero carbon. 

Nobody has spoken today about the costs implied for ordinary people of the measures that will be necessary to attempt to reach the targets that are implied in the IPCC report. We know that, in 2015-16, environmental levies, as part of the Government's anti-climate change policies, amounted to nearly £5 billion, and, for 2017-18, that rose as high as £11 billion, and this is forecast to rise to nearly £14 billion by 2022, which will add over £200 a year to the average power bill. This will impact, of course, most heavily upon those who are most vulnerable—the poor, those who are on low incomes. So, we have to be really sure that what we're doing in going down this road is going to produce the results that are required, and that's what I want to take on first of all, because this report is predicated on the assumption that we can succeed in reducing the likely increases in temperature to 1.5 degrees and that the way of achieving that is by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But if we look at the evidence of observations in the last 100 years, we can see that there's no obvious connection between rises in carbon dioxide levels and what's happening in the atmosphere on temperature.

Between 1850 and 2010, the average global temperature, as far as we can measure it, has increased by 0.8 of a degree centigrade, and if we look at various periods in the last 100 years, we'll see that there isn't any correlation at all between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. Between 1900 and 1940, the temperature globally rose rapidly, but there was only a modest rise in carbon dioxide. Then, from 1940 to 1970, the temperature actually dropped slightly, but there was a strong growth of carbon dioxide. Between 1970 and 1990, temperature and carbon dioxide rose strongly together. And between 1995 and 2015, the temperature has plateaued, and yet there's been record carbon dioxide growth. Nobody has been able to explain the pause. And the reason they can't explain it is that all the climate models on which this report is based are just that: they're models based on speculation about past temperatures and also on speculation about what might happen in the future in certain circumstances on the basis of inadequate information, information we couldn't in any event accumulate. 

The data itself is unreliable, first of all for the very obvious reason that 71 per cent of the planet's surface is water, where there are no temperature measurement facilities, and then much of the land surface as well is inaccessible. We've only had reliable satellite data since 1978—

Will you take an intervention?

Well—yes, all right.

I just feel that I have to intervene because you break the last century up into 10-year, 15-year blocks. Isn't is clear that what's happening here is a trend that has been quite clear for the past 50 or 60 years? And you talk about the oceans: ocean warming is a central part of the evidence that we are seeing, proving that climate change is happening and that it's having a disastrous and detrimental effect on the world around us.

No, I fundamentally disagree with that. I'm just actually reading you figures from the climatic research institute, which is not a collection of global warming sceptics; in fact, they're quite the opposite. So, the data that I'm quoting at you is from those who support your viewpoint, but there is no obvious correlation in the figures between what's happening in the atmosphere on carbon dioxide and what's happening in global temperature as far as we can—. We don't understand, actually, the full impact of the oceans, which are three quarters of the world's surface, on the climate. We don't understand fully the impact of the sun, which is actually where all warming comes from, and there's a great deal that we don't understand. The first principle of science is to understand your own limitations and what you don't know rather than what you do.

Jenny Rathbone started her speech by talking of carbon dioxide in effect as a pollutant. But of course carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it's not like other gases, like sulphur dioxide. Of course, we all want to see clean air, but carbon dioxide is essential for the growth of plants. So, as a result of the increases that we've seen in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent years, there is a very substantial part of the planet that previously couldn't grow crops that is now capable of growing crops. We're actually seeing a greening of the planet. Water vapour is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere: 95 per cent of it, in fact. And so we don't really understand the full impact of that on possible—[Interruption.] I'm not sure that I've got time to give way a second time, I'm sorry, because, otherwise, I—

It's up to you. It's entirely up to you. If you want to, you can, but if you don't—no. That's fine. You can move on. 

The key point here is that man-made carbon dioxide is actually only 3 per cent of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, we're talking about infinitesimally small numbers here. The UK contributes 2 per cent of man-made carbon dioxide worldwide. That carbon dioxide itself contributes only 3 per cent of global carbon dioxide, which itself contributes only 5 per cent of the greenhouse gas effect. We're talking about minute fractions of 1 per cent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, even if we were able to implement all the measures that are mentioned in the IPCC report, the chances of it having any measurable effect on temperature are vanishingly small. So, the principal message that I want to convey today is that even if there were to be the connection that is thought by those who take a different view between global temperature rises and carbon dioxide, the costs of achieving what you want to do are ruinous and actually the effects will be negligible. 

If we listen to the far-right climate change deniers, we will be failing future generations. There's absolutely no doubt about that. Climate change is the biggest threat facing this planet, and it's an absolute shocker that people are prepared to deny that.

Back in 2011, I produced ‘A Greenprint for the Valleys’. Now, this is a programme to regenerate our forgotten and let-down communities by ensuring that they have an economic future with co-operative work that can lead to sustainable outcomes. Had we implemented the proposals in the greenprint, then we would be so much closer to getting where we need to be in terms of a sustainable economy. And let's be clear here: properly dealing with climate change doesn't mean tinkering around the edges. That's not going to do anything. We've been doing that now for years. What we need is nothing short of a transformational change. We need to change the very basis of what our economy is for. It is not for the corporates or the elites or the global powers. It should be shaped in a way that delivers for people, and it should ensure that we protect and safeguard the planet on which we live, and we should live within our ecological means. But as Raymond Williams says in the opening of the greenprint, 

'An economic policy which would begin from real people in real places, and which would be designed to sustain their continuing life, requires a big shift in our thinking'.

In fact, it requires such a big shift in our thinking that we haven't managed to do it yet, but do it we must. We must have an economic plan that has sustainable development and not unsustainable growth at its centre, utilising Wales's abundant natural resources to transition to an economy that is no longer dependant on fossil fuels. 

So, what could we be doing to make a real difference? There are things that we can all do as individuals: we can fly less, we can eat less meat, we can ride our bikes more, but we need more societal and governmental action too. We could do so much more to incentivise renewable energy generation through small-scale co-operatives or social enterprises. The Institute of Welsh Affairs found that £4.6 billion of investment in renewable electricity generation, plus £1.2 billion in domestic energy efficiency, could create some 4,500 jobs during a 15-year investment period. We could do this through a national energy company, and we could also be looking at local authority pension funds as a source for such investment. Welsh local government pension funds are currently investing over £1 billion in climate-wrecking fossil fuels. This makes no sense and it has to stop.

I want to conclude my contribution this afternoon by flagging up the problems with fracking. The Welsh Government has the power to ban fracking in Wales, and it's Plaid Cymru's view that it should ban fracking as soon as possible. We heard just earlier this week of a seismic event with a magnitude of 0.4 on the Richter scale detected near Blackpool where Cuadrilla is fracking for gas in shale rock. I am yet to be convinced about other forms of fracking, because we have to move beyond our fossil fuel addiction. So, the precautionary principle should be upheld to prevent the risk that fracking would pose to Wales. And I very much hope that if nothing else, this Government will act to prevent fracking and not see the offer of jobs or bungs from the fracking companies as an excuse to allow it to go ahead. For too long, our desperation for jobs or funding has led us to accept less than desirable projects and this can't be allowed to happen with fracking. If we are serious about tackling climate change, and if we are to heed the warnings in the latest IPCC report that Llyr Gruffydd and others have referenced, then we have to change the way that we look at jobs and our economy so that we don't keep accepting short-term gain that risks longer term pain. 

I think it's clear that the planet is in peril, Dirprwy Lywydd, and the overwhelming opinion of science and scientists on these matters makes that clear. That's why the IPCC have said that climate change is happening earlier and more rapidly than expected and that we have 12 years left to halt this dangerous climate change and that Governments must take immediate, radical steps to prevent it. In that sort of context, I'm very pleased that Welsh Government has requested that the climate change committee reviews emissions in Wales to make sure that we're playing our part in limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees, because the urgency of the situation demands that.

So, there is much that we can do as a Government, Dirprwy Lywydd, and that we can do as individuals and that organisations can do, and it's a challenge to all of us, isn't it? It isn't just a challenge to Welsh Government, it's a challenge to all Assembly Members, political parties and independents here today. For example, if we looked at agricultural support post Brexit, there are some difficult issues for political parties. We know that there's a need, in terms of land management and agricultural support, to put the environment at the forefront to a much greater extent than has happened hitherto, as we move forward, and that will create difficulties for political parties, I think, in terms of the lobbying that they receive and some of the constituencies that they represent. So, there will be a need for brave decisions as far as those matters are concerned.

Obviously, there are difficult decisions for Welsh Government, and one that I'd like to highlight, which has already been highlighted here today, is transport, because transport is a very significant part of the overall picture. We know that it's perfectly possible to have a much more integrated transport system than we have here in Wales because many other countries have managed that. Obviously, we won't get there overnight, but with the metro, for example, that's one example of how we can make important and significant progress, and hopefully do that within that 12-year timespan that the IPCC flag up. So, we could put more resource into the metro than is currently planned, and we could build it more quickly if, for example, we made a decision to put the resource that's currently earmarked for the M4 relief road into the metro system instead. I would very much support that. We saw the report by the commissioner for future generations making some extremely important points. We await the inquiry report, but we will have difficult decisions to make—all of us and Welsh Government—quite quickly on that very important matter. I think that will demonstrate how serious we are about taking bold, radical and effective steps to deal with the challenges of climate change. 

I would like to see active travel prioritised to a greater extent as a very important part of the cultural shift that we need to make around transport to get people walking and cycling more. I would like to see us make 20 mph the default speed limit right across Wales, with the ability for local authorities, then, to take forward traffic orders for 30 mph on those inner urban roads as an exception rather than the rule. That lends itself to more cycling and walking in those areas and would, again, be a part of that approach to integrated transport, and part of the cultural change that we need.

Also, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to agree that I think Cardiff, as our capital city, has a responsibility to set a really good example, as cities are doing elsewhere. I think Cardiff is on that journey. It has many more 20 mph areas now. It has a lot more cycling, and, indeed, walking. It has the bike scheme, and I know it is considering radical steps when it comes to reducing the number of vehicle journeys on the roads in Cardiff, and I hope very much that we'll see those radical steps in place before long. So, it's perfectly possible to meet these challenges, Dirprwy Lywydd, but it is a major challenge to Welsh Government, to all of us, to our local authorities, to our capital city, to every organisation and individual in our country.

There are days when I find politics fairly frustrating, and often, on those days, I wonder what I will do on the day when I am no longer sitting in this place, and I quite like the idea of teaching. I think today's debate and the motion before us would make a very good case study in what is wrong with the way we do politics, because I look at Plaid Cymru's motion and there's nothing in it I disagree with, and yet, this afternoon, I'll be voting against it, and I'll be condemned by the line of people on Twitter who have been lined up, which is presumably why Plaid Cymru have tabled this motion today, to try and trip us up. They'll condemn me for not doing what I believe to be the case. [Interruption.] Well, Llyr Huws Gruffydd says that's not the way they work; yesterday, Llyr—[Interruption.] Yesterday, I attended the rally on a second vote on the EU referendum. Now, along with many people in this Chamber, I signed up to the cross-party letter calling for a second referendum. This Assembly passed a motion a few weeks back where one of the options was a second referendum. Yesterday, there was a perfectly good rally with speakers from across all parties in favour of a second referendum. I stood there and I listened to the leader of Plaid Cymru make political points about how Labour AMs haven't supported a referendum, when we all stood there together, in common cause, to try and get progressive politics off the ground. And here we go—[Interruption.] Here we go—[Interruption.] Here we go again. And I find it really frustrating that we're spending time trying to trip each other up. So, Neil McEvoy is trying to trip up Plaid Cymru, presumably for when they let him back in, so he can put his marker down as being anti-nuclear. Plaid are trying to trip up—. Neil Hamilton, Duw a'n helpo—where do we start there? I was reading, Neil—listening to your arguments you've put many times—. I was reading that in 1984 you voted against banning leaded petrol, because you said there was no evidence it was harmful and there would be jobs lost in your constituency. And, you know, you've been consistently wrong. You were wrong on leaded petrol, you were wrong on apartheid, you're wrong on climate change, you're wrong on Europe. So, please—interesting as it is to have you here as a sort of Madame Tussauds figure to remind us of the ghastliness of some of the arguments of the past, there's no time for this today. This is serious stuff. I give a damn about this. This is serious stuff.

Will you take an intervention?

I won't, David. I just want to develop an argument. There is common cause across all parties here. This is an argument that—David Melding said future generations will not forgive us lightly for not acting seriously. Instead of tripping each other up and scoring political points—. Many of the points in the motion, as I say, I agree with, and I do hope that the new Welsh Government in the new year will take forward a number of them. But, on the M4, there's a good reason why I'm not going to be voting with the Plaid motion on the M4 this afternoon, even though I agree with it: because there is going to be a substantive vote on it. Like the leader of the house said yesterday, there will be a substantive vote before Christmas. There will be a vote on the budget. That is the time to nail our colours to the mast on the M4, and all you could do today, by making a symbolic gesture, which I'll be criticised for, no doubt, is—. There are delicate discussions going on, and what is the point in false martyrdom today, when actually there are serious battles to be fought? [Interruption.] No, Rhun, I'm not going to give way; I won't. There are serious battles to be fought, and matters of principle about the future of our country and giving meaning to this agenda. And that's what—[Interruption.] And that's what—[Interruption.] And that is what we should be focusing on, not trying to—[Interruption.] Rhun is determined to intervene, and therefore I shall give way.

Thank you for taking an intervention. In that classroom of yours that you describe, where you will be giving this lecture, will you be instructing or emphasising to those pupils that sticking with your principles is quite important, that if there is a vote in front of you that you agree with, you should, as a matter of principle, decide to vote for it?

I think—[Interruption.] The irony of that, given the debate within Plaid Cymru on nuclear, is not lost on me. But, let me say, what I would be saying to the classroom is that these things are not black and white, that you have to pick your moments and fight your battles. I'll take no lectures from Plaid Cymru on the record on climate change. I led the campaign to create an active travel Act. I set up the project in the IWA that is now doing ground-breaking work on setting out a map for renewable energy. Working across parties, I have been a key advocate here for the last two and a half years on the black route. So, I'll take no lectures from anybody on that side about sticking to principles. But there's a moment in politics when you strike and when you act. Now is not that moment. Now is the moment for others to pick each other's eyes out and score points, and I despair of it.    

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased Plaid Cymru have brought forward this debate, following the publication of the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change. I absolutely agree with Llyr Huws Gruffydd, in his opening remarks, that climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing humanity.

Our environment Act requires Welsh Ministers to ensure that emissions in Wales are at least 80 per cent below the 1990 baseline by 2050. One of the Government's amendments recognises the challenges of decarbonisation, given our economic profile. Over the past two and a half years, our focus has been on establishing a regulatory and policy framework to meet our statutory commitment, based on significant stakeholder engagement and advice from our statutory advisers.

Our approach to climate change must be informed by scientific knowledge, so I welcome the IPCC report. It is the best assessment of all existing knowledge on the subject, critically assessing thousands of studies from across the world. I've written to the UK Government to approve a joint commission for advice from our statutory advisers, the UK Committee on Climate Change, on the implications of the evidence. The report will be published before the end of March next year.

In December, I will be asking the Assembly to agree the interim targets and first two carbon budgets for Wales. These are consistent with the advice from the UKCCC, and they will set the context for delivering the actions that we need to take as a Government. There is much cross-party consensus on this agenda and the actions that need to be taken, and this is encouraging for us as a society. I agree with much of the sentiment in the motion by Plaid Cymru. However, I cannot support the motion, as to do so would predetermine decisions, particularly around the M4 and petroleum extraction, which need to follow due process.

Decarbonising our power sector is particularly challenging, and we need a mix of generation sources and technologies to enable us to adapt. The Welsh Government believes that nuclear is a part of the mix in terms of generating significant low-carbon energy, and this is why we oppose amendment 2 from Neil McEvoy. However, since coming into this role, I've set an ambitious target of generating 70 per cent of Wales's energy consumption from renewable sources. Renewables generated enough electricity to meet 43 per cent of consumption in Wales in 2016, and indications are that this has risen further, to 48 per cent, in 2017. We also set targets around community and local ownership to ensure that we capture the benefits for Wales from the transition to a low-carbon energy system.

Our first low-carbon delivery plan, which will be published in March, will set out the actions, policies and proposals that we will be taking to reduce emissions and support low-carbon growth across a range of sectors, including transport, buildings and land use. We are already undertaking a range of actions in these areas, and therefore while I am encouraged that the Conservatives are thinking along similar lines, I cannot support their amendment 3, and would like to bring forward a Government amendment that recognises the significant actions to date.

We are already making good progress. For example, the emissions reduction targets I am proposing for Wales are more ambitious than our counterparts across the UK, and close to the maximum that is technically feasible for Wales. We've put decarbonisation at the front and centre of Welsh Government policy, including it as one of our six cross-cutting priorities in the national strategy. It's also a central pillar within our economic action plan for Wales. I've set out my ambition for a carbon neutral public sector in Wales. In support of this, we committed £28 million of zero-interest capital loans in 2017-18, adding to the £27 million in the previous two years. This investment will realise savings of £183 million for the public sector over the life of the installed technologies and also reduce carbon emissions by 820,000 tonnes.

In Welsh Government’s 'Taking Wales Forward', we make clear our opposition to fracking. And we now have the powers around fracking, and, over the summer, I held a public consultation on petroleum extraction in Wales, which set out not only a policy to oppose fracking, but also proposed that there should be no new petroleum licensing in Wales. We believe the further development of new petroleum sources runs counter to the ambitions identified in the well-being goals and our commitment to a low-carbon future. And, following the consultation, I will be making a statement by the end of this term confirming our position.

We’ve recently announced plans for a new £5 billion rail service, which will lead to a 25 per cent reduction in carbon emissions on the Wales and borders network, and plans to develop a new Wales transport strategy that can support an integrated, multimodal and low-carbon transport network across Wales.

Since 2011, we’ve invested more than £240 million in the Welsh Government Warm Homes programme, which includes Nest and Arbed, improving the energy efficiency of more than 45,000 homes, and agreed further investment of £104 million for the period 2017 to 2021. I’m reviewing Part L of building regulation standards to increase the required energy efficiency of new homes. Whilst one of the aims is to deliver as a minimum nearly zero energy—required by the EU directive—I will consider imposing more stringent standards to meet our ambitions.

The disinvestment debate can be a powerful way of engaging individuals, investment funds, and wider society on this issue. Fund managers need to think carefully about what they are investing in, in terms of integrity, risk of ongoing investment in fossil fuel sectors, and potentially missed opportunities from not investing in low-carbon sectors. The global direction is now very clear. It is crucial that we continue to drive momentum in this important area, and I would welcome all of your support in helping facilitate the changes required across Wales. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I now call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate?

Well, diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm not sure whether I enjoyed or I hated that experience, actually; it veered from one emotion to the other, from the consensus that David Melding was talking about, to something very different from Lee Waters. But, there we are, such is life. I don't think this place is boring if these are the kinds of debates that we have, but there we are.

There are too many speakers for me to pick up on each of them, and I did overshoot slightly in my opening remarks in terms of time, but I would say that I agree with a lot of what Members here have said. I think that David Melding is perfectly right, actually, to say that people will look back at the way we are actually dealing with this in not a dissimilar way to how people consider slavery. You know, I'm constantly reminded by a certain friend of mine that, in years to come, people will never understand why we use clean water to flush our toilets. You know, that's the kind of thing that, in years to come, people will really question.

And, Rhun, thank you for your contribution as well. My father, actually, was on that very last journey the train made from Aberystwyth to Carmarthen, and I'm determined that he's going to be on the very first one that the new service provides, hopefully in the not too distant future. And the £100 billion on HS2 and what we could do with that—I mean, what is the Welsh word for 'mindblowing'? I was trying to think—really, but what we could be doing with our share of that.

I think I have to respond to some of Lee's comments, and I'm never sure, sometimes, whether he is serious or whether he's making mischief, but I'll take what he said. You said that there's a moment when you strike and there's a moment when you act. Well, there's a moment where we as an opposition party are expected to lay a motion before this Assembly as well. And this is it, you know—this is it. So, apologies if I've upset you—well, at least I feel I should apologise. Making it out to be some sort of big conspiracy to get at you maybe is a bit rich, I'd have to say, but there we are, that's it.

I will address a couple of the amendments in the very short time that I have left—or all the amendments in the very short time that I have left.

The first amendment from the Government—we won’t be supporting amendment 1 because it’s an attempt to rewrite some history. It’s a simple statement, noting the conclusions of one of this Assembly’s committees, namely that the Government is likely to miss its targets on carbon emissions by 2020. We don’t need to fear that. That is, if that is likely to be the case, well, we have to front up to it, if I can use that term. [Laughter.]

Now, in terms of the Conservative amendment, I would agree with much of its content, but, as has been anticipated, because you delete much of what we say we'd like to happen, we won’t be able to support it.

On the second amendment, I’m not opposed to the amendment, but Plaid Cymru is clear at a national level that we oppose new nuclear power stations and there are several valid reasons to do that, but I don’t think that this is necessarily the strongest reason. This isn’t the example—. We only need to look at how some prominent environmentalists such as Monbiot have been grappling with this question to recognise that there is no specific consensus on this issue. But certainly it is something that deserves consideration and broader discussion.

In terms of the final amendment, the Government’s amendment, which again would delete all of our suggestions, the aim of this motion is not to outline what is happening but to outline what more needs to be done.

Passing this amendment from the Labour Government would make it a rather self-congratulatory motion, just listing what the Welsh Government is currently doing, and that, of course, would be in stark contrast to the central message of the IPCC report. The question isn't, 'What are we currently doing?' The question is, 'What are we going to do to go over and above what's currently happening?' Because if we don't, if we carry on as we are, as the IPCC report tells us, we will fail on climate change, and the implications of that are clear to almost all of us. I have to say, after Neil Hamilton's contribution, I might be reassessing my assertion, which I made in my speech, that the biggest threat to mankind is climate change, because I'm just wondering now whether, actually, the biggest threat to mankind is those who are climate change deniers.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.