El titular de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada, destacó que se tiene en agenda el tema del reglamento de Bioseguridad, el cual permitirá ser más cuidadoso y acotado en ese marco.
México, DF.- La siembra experimental de Maíz Genéticamente Modificado fue aprobada antes de que existiera la Ley de Bioseguridad, porque ya se tenían permisos especiales con un impacto ambiental muy claro.
En entrevista, el titular de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada, destacó que se tiene en agenda el tema del reglamento de Bioseguridad, el cual permitirá ser más cuidadoso y acotado en ese marco.
“Pero seguimos en la línea, el reglamento tiene que estar terminado con los artículos que la Consejería Jurídica (de la Presidencia) y la Cibiogem” (Comisión Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Genéticamente Modificados) han definido.
El funcionario federal aseveró que en ese documento, “se está contemplando un régimen especial de protección para el maíz y para los productores”.
“Son una serie de elementos no sólo de bioseguridad sino de protección real a quienes producen, cultivan, cruzan y mejoran este tipo de maíz, con la finalidad de tener una certeza prácticamente total de que vamos a conservar las razas criollas que tenemos en México”, expresó.
Además, se debe tener un análisis de riesgo para verificar que la siembra de un maíz no pueda afectar a poblaciones silvestres y por otro lado hacer el estudio caso por caso, pues no puede ser el mismo caso en Quintana Roo, en Oaxaca y Tamaulipas.
Asimismo, en el reglamento, dijo, se tiene que ir “paso a paso hacia lo grande”, a fin de verificar que no haya ningún impacto con el cultivo de los maíces genéticamente modificados.
Explicó que de esta forma, la temporalidad está establecida, ya que una vez que se tiene el resultado de las primeras cosechas, se determinará si no ha habido impacto y esto permitirá ir generando nuevas esferas o nuevas áreas de cultivo.
Notimex
lunes, 29 de octubre de 2007
Advierten ONU grave deterioro ambiental
Es urgente aplicar medidas radicales para terminar con la depredación del medio ambiente, pues por primera vez en la historia se ha llegado a un punto donde se consume más de lo que la naturaleza produce.
México.- Es urgente que todos los países del mundo apliquen medidas radicales para terminar con la depredación del medio ambiente, pues por primera vez en la historia se ha llegado a un punto donde se consume más de lo que la naturaleza produce.
Tal es la advertencia que se desprende del reporte sobre el medio ambiente denominado “Geo 4″, preparado por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente, según el cual la actividad humana es la principal responsable de este hecho.
Conforme al reporte, sólo en América Latina en promedio 77 por ciento de la población vive en ciudades y la tendencia llevará a que en 2020 esa proporción aumente a 82 por ciento.
Por ahora, en países como Argentina y Uruguay la proporción llega a 90 por ciento; en Brasil alcanza 80 por ciento y en México y Cuba se acerca a 75 por ciento.
En general, los modelos urbanos importan de los países desarrollados la dependencia de los automóviles, lo que genera desigualdades medio ambientales que afectan, sobre todo, a los pobres, las mujeres y los indígenas.
De hecho, “la población del mundo ha alcanzado un estado en el que la cantidad de recursos necesaria para mantenerlo supera lo que hay disponible”.
Según el reporte, al día de hoy la actividad normal de cada ser humano afecta 21.9 hectáreas, mientras la capacidad biológica de la tierra es de sólo 15.7 hectáreas en promedio. Además sólo 16 por ciento de los residuos sólidos se maneja adecuadamente, mientras la generación de basura por persona ha crecido de manera dramática en los últimos 20 años, movido sobre todo por los hábitos de consumo de los países desarrollados.
En materia de agua potable, se prevé que para 2025 casi mil 800 millones de personas carezcan del líquido.
En esa fecha, los cortes de agua se incrementarán en 50 por ciento en países en desarrollo y en 18 por ciento en el mundo desarrollado.
El calentamiento global incrementará el nivel de los mares con serias repercusiones sociales, pues 60 por ciento de la población mundial habita a menos de 100 kilómetros de la costa.
En tanto, la acidificación del mar afectará la fauna marina, arriesgando con ello la seguridad alimenticia.
La seguridad de los alimentos también estaría afectada por la acelerada pérdida de biodiversidad, pues sólo 14 especies representan 90 por ciento de la ganadería mundial y 30 cultivos generan 90 por ciento de las calorías del mundo.
La situación es tan grave que inclusive se teme que, debido a las dificultades de sobrevivencia generadas por la depredación ambiental, la mitad de los seis mil idiomas del mundo puedan perderse.
El informe advierte que se deben tomar los ejemplos de gestión exitosa del medio ambiente y las autoridades en todos los países deben seguir medidas radicales y urgentes para ofrecer un futuro a su población.
Notimex
--------------------------
Link a Reporte Geo de UNEP
México.- Es urgente que todos los países del mundo apliquen medidas radicales para terminar con la depredación del medio ambiente, pues por primera vez en la historia se ha llegado a un punto donde se consume más de lo que la naturaleza produce.
Tal es la advertencia que se desprende del reporte sobre el medio ambiente denominado “Geo 4″, preparado por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente, según el cual la actividad humana es la principal responsable de este hecho.
Conforme al reporte, sólo en América Latina en promedio 77 por ciento de la población vive en ciudades y la tendencia llevará a que en 2020 esa proporción aumente a 82 por ciento.
Por ahora, en países como Argentina y Uruguay la proporción llega a 90 por ciento; en Brasil alcanza 80 por ciento y en México y Cuba se acerca a 75 por ciento.
En general, los modelos urbanos importan de los países desarrollados la dependencia de los automóviles, lo que genera desigualdades medio ambientales que afectan, sobre todo, a los pobres, las mujeres y los indígenas.
De hecho, “la población del mundo ha alcanzado un estado en el que la cantidad de recursos necesaria para mantenerlo supera lo que hay disponible”.
Según el reporte, al día de hoy la actividad normal de cada ser humano afecta 21.9 hectáreas, mientras la capacidad biológica de la tierra es de sólo 15.7 hectáreas en promedio. Además sólo 16 por ciento de los residuos sólidos se maneja adecuadamente, mientras la generación de basura por persona ha crecido de manera dramática en los últimos 20 años, movido sobre todo por los hábitos de consumo de los países desarrollados.
En materia de agua potable, se prevé que para 2025 casi mil 800 millones de personas carezcan del líquido.
En esa fecha, los cortes de agua se incrementarán en 50 por ciento en países en desarrollo y en 18 por ciento en el mundo desarrollado.
El calentamiento global incrementará el nivel de los mares con serias repercusiones sociales, pues 60 por ciento de la población mundial habita a menos de 100 kilómetros de la costa.
En tanto, la acidificación del mar afectará la fauna marina, arriesgando con ello la seguridad alimenticia.
La seguridad de los alimentos también estaría afectada por la acelerada pérdida de biodiversidad, pues sólo 14 especies representan 90 por ciento de la ganadería mundial y 30 cultivos generan 90 por ciento de las calorías del mundo.
La situación es tan grave que inclusive se teme que, debido a las dificultades de sobrevivencia generadas por la depredación ambiental, la mitad de los seis mil idiomas del mundo puedan perderse.
El informe advierte que se deben tomar los ejemplos de gestión exitosa del medio ambiente y las autoridades en todos los países deben seguir medidas radicales y urgentes para ofrecer un futuro a su población.
Notimex
--------------------------
Link a Reporte Geo de UNEP
“Gaviota” emprende su campaña de limpieza
Ni las fuertes ráfagas de viento ahuyentaron a la asociación.
Lograron recoger una tonelada de basura en tres horas de labor.
Las ráfagas de viento que habían conseguido doblar un asta metálica ubicada sobre el camellón del Boulevard Costero probablemente durante la madrugada de ayer, y que también seguían alborotando las olas del mar por la mañana en la Playa de Ciudad Madero, de la misma forma dificultaron la ardua labor que emprendía este domingo la Asociación Gaviota con el apoyo de voluntarios, pero no la hicieron desistir.
En punto de las nueve de la mañana, brigadas interesadas en participar con la intensa campaña de limpieza que encabeza la citada asociación desde catorce meses, específicamente el último domingo de cada mes, se dieron cita frente al campamento tortuguero de la Playa Norte para comenzar a levantar todo tipo de desechos que encontraran a su paso.
Más de 250 jóvenes, en su mayoría alumnos del Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Tamaulipas (IEST) con enormes bolsas negras de plástico en mano y guantes quirúrgicos comenzaron a recorrer la playa, recogiendo basura con las manos o valiéndose de varas a manera de arpón para ensartar los objetos más sucios, que a veces era necesario correr atrás de ellos porque el aire los arrastraba.
Fue necesario que también recurrieran a dos retroexcavadoras y tres camiones de volteo para recoger la palizada, “nos fallaron los ayuntamientos que habían quedado de prestarnos esas unidades, pero afortunadamente contamos con la ayuda de algunos particulares para resolver el problema”, mencionó la presidenta de la Asociación Gaviota, Beatriz Caballero Collado.
El resultado de tres horas consecutivas de esta tarea fue la acumulación de una tonelada de desechos, entre ellos la mayoría llantas, así como envases de plástico de bebidas comerciales y cloro; además de material quirúrgico en desuso que se sospecha que provinieron del Río Pánuco y vinieron a parar a esta playa, con motivo de las pasadas lluvias. La basura será llevada por parte de una empresa al relleno sanitario de Altamira.
Doria Ortiz
Lograron recoger una tonelada de basura en tres horas de labor.
Las ráfagas de viento que habían conseguido doblar un asta metálica ubicada sobre el camellón del Boulevard Costero probablemente durante la madrugada de ayer, y que también seguían alborotando las olas del mar por la mañana en la Playa de Ciudad Madero, de la misma forma dificultaron la ardua labor que emprendía este domingo la Asociación Gaviota con el apoyo de voluntarios, pero no la hicieron desistir.
En punto de las nueve de la mañana, brigadas interesadas en participar con la intensa campaña de limpieza que encabeza la citada asociación desde catorce meses, específicamente el último domingo de cada mes, se dieron cita frente al campamento tortuguero de la Playa Norte para comenzar a levantar todo tipo de desechos que encontraran a su paso.
Más de 250 jóvenes, en su mayoría alumnos del Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Tamaulipas (IEST) con enormes bolsas negras de plástico en mano y guantes quirúrgicos comenzaron a recorrer la playa, recogiendo basura con las manos o valiéndose de varas a manera de arpón para ensartar los objetos más sucios, que a veces era necesario correr atrás de ellos porque el aire los arrastraba.
Fue necesario que también recurrieran a dos retroexcavadoras y tres camiones de volteo para recoger la palizada, “nos fallaron los ayuntamientos que habían quedado de prestarnos esas unidades, pero afortunadamente contamos con la ayuda de algunos particulares para resolver el problema”, mencionó la presidenta de la Asociación Gaviota, Beatriz Caballero Collado.
El resultado de tres horas consecutivas de esta tarea fue la acumulación de una tonelada de desechos, entre ellos la mayoría llantas, así como envases de plástico de bebidas comerciales y cloro; además de material quirúrgico en desuso que se sospecha que provinieron del Río Pánuco y vinieron a parar a esta playa, con motivo de las pasadas lluvias. La basura será llevada por parte de una empresa al relleno sanitario de Altamira.
Doria Ortiz
Exxon podría apelar multa de $2,500 mdd por derrame de petróleo / Exxon can appeal $2.5bn oil fine
Exxon Mobil has won the right to appeal against a $2.5bn (£1.21bn) damages bill relating to a 1989 Alaskan oil spill.
The US Supreme Court said it would hear the appeal against record damages due to victims of the Valdez oil spill.
The case has dragged on since 1994 with the US oil giant fighting to reduce the bill, which it has called excessive.
In what was one of the biggest ever oil spills, 11 million gallons of crude were released into Alaska's wilderness after the Exxon tanker hit a reef.
About 1,300 miles (2,080km) of coastline was contaminated as a result of the oil spill.
Constitutional issues
Captain of the Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, admitted drinking vodka before boarding the vessel, but was subsequently acquitted of operating a ship while intoxicated.
Exxon argues that it cannot be held responsible for the actions of Mr Hazelwood and says that the $2.5bn penalty is excessive under marine law and when compared with other federal rulings on punitive damages.
"This record punitive award unquestionably raises important issues of constitutional dimension," said Walter Dellinger, Exxon's lead lawyer on the case.
The world's biggest listed oil firm, Exxon added that it had already paid $3.4bn in clean-up costs and other fines related to the oil disaster and damage to the natural environment.
But lawyers for the victims dispute the charge that the award is too high and argue that the damages represent "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profit".
In 2006, Exxon reported the highest ever net annual profit for a US business at $39.5bn.
Repeated challenges
If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court the money would be split between 32,000 fishermen, natives, land owners, small businessmen and municipalities in south central Alaska.
Some of the victims had died while Exxon has repeatedly challenged court verdicts, lawyers said.
Back in 1994 a jury in Alaska ordered US giant Exxon to pay $5bn in compensation, but the firm successfully appealed the size of the damages.
After a number of court cases over the intervening years, this figure was cut by federal judges until a US appeals court set the amount at $2.5bn.
The appeal will be go before the Supreme Court next February or March with a ruling expected by the end of June.
The US Supreme Court said it would hear the appeal against record damages due to victims of the Valdez oil spill.
The case has dragged on since 1994 with the US oil giant fighting to reduce the bill, which it has called excessive.
In what was one of the biggest ever oil spills, 11 million gallons of crude were released into Alaska's wilderness after the Exxon tanker hit a reef.
About 1,300 miles (2,080km) of coastline was contaminated as a result of the oil spill.
Constitutional issues
Captain of the Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, admitted drinking vodka before boarding the vessel, but was subsequently acquitted of operating a ship while intoxicated.
Exxon argues that it cannot be held responsible for the actions of Mr Hazelwood and says that the $2.5bn penalty is excessive under marine law and when compared with other federal rulings on punitive damages.
"This record punitive award unquestionably raises important issues of constitutional dimension," said Walter Dellinger, Exxon's lead lawyer on the case.
The world's biggest listed oil firm, Exxon added that it had already paid $3.4bn in clean-up costs and other fines related to the oil disaster and damage to the natural environment.
But lawyers for the victims dispute the charge that the award is too high and argue that the damages represent "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profit".
In 2006, Exxon reported the highest ever net annual profit for a US business at $39.5bn.
Repeated challenges
If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court the money would be split between 32,000 fishermen, natives, land owners, small businessmen and municipalities in south central Alaska.
Some of the victims had died while Exxon has repeatedly challenged court verdicts, lawyers said.
Back in 1994 a jury in Alaska ordered US giant Exxon to pay $5bn in compensation, but the firm successfully appealed the size of the damages.
After a number of court cases over the intervening years, this figure was cut by federal judges until a US appeals court set the amount at $2.5bn.
The appeal will be go before the Supreme Court next February or March with a ruling expected by the end of June.
Productos orgánicos 'mejores para ti' / Organic produce 'better for you'
Organic produce is better for you than ordinary food, a major European Union-funded study says.
The £12m four-year project, led by Newcastle University, found a general trend showing organic food contained more antioxidants and less fatty acids.
But researchers did admit the study showed some variations.
The findings call into question the current stance of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which says there is no evidence that organic food is better.
Researchers grew fruit, vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and non-organic sites across Europe, including a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University.
They found levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle were between 50% and 80% higher than normal milk.
Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce had between 20% and 40% more nutrients.
But the study, which is yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, also showed there were significant variations.
Change
Project co-ordinator Professor Carlo Leifert said: "We have shown there are more of certain nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods.
"Our research is now trying to find out where the difference between organic and conventional food comes from.
"What we're really interested in is finding out why there is so much variability with respect to the differences. What in the agricultural system gives a higher nutritional content and less of the baddies in the food?"
He said he hoped the findings would help farmers in organic to improve the quality of their produce.
Final results of the project are due to be published over the next 12 months.
The FSA, the body which provides advice and information on food, currently states: "Consumers may also choose to buy organic food because they believe that it is safer and more nutritious than other food.
"However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."
But officials are currently evaluating organic food for nutrient and non-nutrient content, with a report due to be published next year.
However, the Soil Association said the findings of the EU project showed the watchdog should change its stance.
A spokesman said: "The FSA has always been quite sceptical of organic food when there is no need to be. This study again shows that and I would hope they change their stance soon."
The £12m four-year project, led by Newcastle University, found a general trend showing organic food contained more antioxidants and less fatty acids.
But researchers did admit the study showed some variations.
The findings call into question the current stance of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which says there is no evidence that organic food is better.
Researchers grew fruit, vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and non-organic sites across Europe, including a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University.
They found levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle were between 50% and 80% higher than normal milk.
Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce had between 20% and 40% more nutrients.
But the study, which is yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, also showed there were significant variations.
Change
Project co-ordinator Professor Carlo Leifert said: "We have shown there are more of certain nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods.
"Our research is now trying to find out where the difference between organic and conventional food comes from.
"What we're really interested in is finding out why there is so much variability with respect to the differences. What in the agricultural system gives a higher nutritional content and less of the baddies in the food?"
He said he hoped the findings would help farmers in organic to improve the quality of their produce.
Final results of the project are due to be published over the next 12 months.
The FSA, the body which provides advice and information on food, currently states: "Consumers may also choose to buy organic food because they believe that it is safer and more nutritious than other food.
"However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."
But officials are currently evaluating organic food for nutrient and non-nutrient content, with a report due to be published next year.
However, the Soil Association said the findings of the EU project showed the watchdog should change its stance.
A spokesman said: "The FSA has always been quite sceptical of organic food when there is no need to be. This study again shows that and I would hope they change their stance soon."
Massive rise in Europe GM crops
By Tom Heap
BBC News
Figures published on Monday show the area planted with genetically modified crops in Europe has grown by 77% since last year.
This year more than 1,000 sq km (386 sq miles) of GM maize was harvested.
The biotech industry says this proves its products are appealing to farmers and are safe for the environment.
The only genetically modified crop grown widely in Europe is maize resistant to the corn borer - a moth larva which eats the stem.
The maize is cultivated for animal feed - not for human consumption.
Planted in Spain for the last 10 years, the maize is now proving popular in France where the acreage has tripled in a year and also in Germany and the Czech Republic.
Neither the pest nor the GM maize is found in Britain.
One thousand sq km (386 sq miles) is still a small fraction of the total farmed area of Europe and also tiny compared with the one million sq km (0.38 million sq miles) under GM around the world - an expanse four times the size of Britain.
Some environmental groups claim beneficial insects could also be harmed by the crop; and in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has suspended all GM plantings until next year.
Clare Oxborrow is a Friends of the Earth food campaigner. She told the BBC that the increase in the area planted with GM crops should not be viewed as beneficial.
"The reality is, these crops have failed to deliver benefits, and more and more evidence is, in fact, coming to light showing that there are increased concerns about their environmental risks," she said.
"GM crops, GM industry is not competitive, it is not creating jobs, it is not creating any new environmental benefits, it's not accepted by consumers, and I think we need to take a long, hard look. These figures today are more about the industry trying to reassure its investors than any significant success."
But Julian Little, who chairs the Agricultural Biotech Council, an umbrella group that represents six major companies interested in the commercial use of GM crops, countered this point of view.
"For the first time in the European Union, there is over a 100,000 hectares of GM crops being grown, exploding yet another myth in the whole line of myths that said that GM crops don't work, GM crops will never be popular, GM crops will never be embraced in Europe.
"Year on year, we see increases in farmers excited about the technology, trying it - it works," he told BBC News.
BBC News
Figures published on Monday show the area planted with genetically modified crops in Europe has grown by 77% since last year.
This year more than 1,000 sq km (386 sq miles) of GM maize was harvested.
The biotech industry says this proves its products are appealing to farmers and are safe for the environment.
The only genetically modified crop grown widely in Europe is maize resistant to the corn borer - a moth larva which eats the stem.
The maize is cultivated for animal feed - not for human consumption.
Planted in Spain for the last 10 years, the maize is now proving popular in France where the acreage has tripled in a year and also in Germany and the Czech Republic.
Neither the pest nor the GM maize is found in Britain.
One thousand sq km (386 sq miles) is still a small fraction of the total farmed area of Europe and also tiny compared with the one million sq km (0.38 million sq miles) under GM around the world - an expanse four times the size of Britain.
Some environmental groups claim beneficial insects could also be harmed by the crop; and in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has suspended all GM plantings until next year.
Clare Oxborrow is a Friends of the Earth food campaigner. She told the BBC that the increase in the area planted with GM crops should not be viewed as beneficial.
"The reality is, these crops have failed to deliver benefits, and more and more evidence is, in fact, coming to light showing that there are increased concerns about their environmental risks," she said.
"GM crops, GM industry is not competitive, it is not creating jobs, it is not creating any new environmental benefits, it's not accepted by consumers, and I think we need to take a long, hard look. These figures today are more about the industry trying to reassure its investors than any significant success."
But Julian Little, who chairs the Agricultural Biotech Council, an umbrella group that represents six major companies interested in the commercial use of GM crops, countered this point of view.
"For the first time in the European Union, there is over a 100,000 hectares of GM crops being grown, exploding yet another myth in the whole line of myths that said that GM crops don't work, GM crops will never be popular, GM crops will never be embraced in Europe.
"Year on year, we see increases in farmers excited about the technology, trying it - it works," he told BBC News.
Benn pledges tougher climate bill
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn says he is putting forward a tougher, more effective and more transparent bill to help tackle climate change.
There will be a new carbon trading scheme for large and medium-sized firms which will cut more than 4m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2020.
The Bill will make the UK the first country to put carbon emissions reduction targets into law.
He spoke as MPs called for a climate change minister to be appointed.
The Environmental Audit Committee wants a cross departmental climate change minister to drive government policy and who could attend Cabinet meetings.
Mr Benn said the government would amend its draft climate change legislation following a three-month public consultation and scrutiny by three parliamentary committees.
Aviation emissions
An independent committee on climate change would be set up that would advise on "five year carbon budgets" - part of a new commitment to carbon reduction
"We will use the bill to introduce carbon trading in further sectors," said Mr Benn.
"These powers will implement the new carbon reduction commitment - a trading scheme for large to medium size companies and public sector organisations.
"This scheme will save four million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2020 and help to spread responsibility for doing something about climate change right across the economy."
Other measures will include, asking the committee on climate change to report on whether the government's target to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050 should be strengthened further.
It will also be asked to look at the implications of including other greenhouse gases and emissions from international aviation and shipping in the UK's targets as part of this review.
The committee will be independent from the government, having its own chief executive and staff, and ministers will be required to seek its advice before amending the 2020 and 2050 targets in the Bill.
'Irresponsible'
However, Caroline Lucas, the Green Party's principal speaker, criticised the government's response to the three month public consultation on the draft Climate Change Bill and its target to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050.
She said that target was "woefully inadequate and too distant".
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies in the face of science," she said.
"Brown is as content as Blair to continue fudging and stalling on cutting on our emissions and so the UK continues to fail on climate change.
"We need a Climate Change Bill which sets binding emissions reduction targets of at least 6% a year to allow us to achieve cuts in UK greenhouse gas emissions in the region of 90% by 2030."
Climate change minister
But Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne gave Mr Benn's announcement a qualified welcome.
He said he was pleased to see that the government was now saying that other greenhouse gases should be included in the UK's emissions targets and not just CO2.
The Environmental Audit Committee, meanwhile, said a Climate Change and Energy secretariat, based in the Cabinet Office, could cut inter-departmental conflict.
Committee chairman, Conservative MP Tim Yeo said: "The UK must be equipped to meet both the challenge of a carbon-constrained world and the likely climate change impacts that will occur.
"It would be disastrous if bad planning policy meant that today's new housing developments become tomorrow's "climate slums," he said.
There will be a new carbon trading scheme for large and medium-sized firms which will cut more than 4m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2020.
The Bill will make the UK the first country to put carbon emissions reduction targets into law.
He spoke as MPs called for a climate change minister to be appointed.
The Environmental Audit Committee wants a cross departmental climate change minister to drive government policy and who could attend Cabinet meetings.
Mr Benn said the government would amend its draft climate change legislation following a three-month public consultation and scrutiny by three parliamentary committees.
Aviation emissions
An independent committee on climate change would be set up that would advise on "five year carbon budgets" - part of a new commitment to carbon reduction
"We will use the bill to introduce carbon trading in further sectors," said Mr Benn.
"These powers will implement the new carbon reduction commitment - a trading scheme for large to medium size companies and public sector organisations.
"This scheme will save four million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2020 and help to spread responsibility for doing something about climate change right across the economy."
Other measures will include, asking the committee on climate change to report on whether the government's target to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050 should be strengthened further.
It will also be asked to look at the implications of including other greenhouse gases and emissions from international aviation and shipping in the UK's targets as part of this review.
The committee will be independent from the government, having its own chief executive and staff, and ministers will be required to seek its advice before amending the 2020 and 2050 targets in the Bill.
'Irresponsible'
However, Caroline Lucas, the Green Party's principal speaker, criticised the government's response to the three month public consultation on the draft Climate Change Bill and its target to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050.
She said that target was "woefully inadequate and too distant".
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies in the face of science," she said.
"Brown is as content as Blair to continue fudging and stalling on cutting on our emissions and so the UK continues to fail on climate change.
"We need a Climate Change Bill which sets binding emissions reduction targets of at least 6% a year to allow us to achieve cuts in UK greenhouse gas emissions in the region of 90% by 2030."
Climate change minister
But Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne gave Mr Benn's announcement a qualified welcome.
He said he was pleased to see that the government was now saying that other greenhouse gases should be included in the UK's emissions targets and not just CO2.
The Environmental Audit Committee, meanwhile, said a Climate Change and Energy secretariat, based in the Cabinet Office, could cut inter-departmental conflict.
Committee chairman, Conservative MP Tim Yeo said: "The UK must be equipped to meet both the challenge of a carbon-constrained world and the likely climate change impacts that will occur.
"It would be disastrous if bad planning policy meant that today's new housing developments become tomorrow's "climate slums," he said.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
Entradas
