By Catherine Jacob, Sky News environment correspondent

The queue of people snaked down the road past Euston Station, around a thousand of them in all. There was definite anticipation in the air. But it wasn't a rock concert or a film premiere they were waiting for. No, perhaps surprisingly, they were all there for a debate on the government's forthcoming Climate Change Bill.

Topping the bill: the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, the Conservative Environment Spokeman, Peter Ainsworth and the Liberal Democrat's man on all things green, Steve Webb: by anyone's standards, not the most glamorous line up. All three were given a strict limit of ten minutes to emit their views on climate change and the debate was kicked off provocatively by green hero and outgoing Friends of the Earth Director, Tony Juniper.

To the chagrin of environmentalists the country over, the draft Climate Change Bill currently sets out a target for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 and does not include aviation and shipping emissions. Tony reminded the audience that the science is now clear, climate change is happening quicker than anyone expected and he called on Hilary Benn to strengthen the bill:

"There is no point in setting the direction later. We need a clear signal from the beginning: 80% by 2050."

Next up, the Environment Secretary himself, who as always was big on enthusiasm about how everyone needs to act together to save the planet. But if the crowd was hoping for a firm commitment to an 80% CO2 reduction target in the Climate Change Bill, they didn't get it.

Mr Benn said: "I know many of you would like to see a higher target beyond 60%. That is why we have asked the Climate Change Committee whether the target should be changed. If the Government didn't think the target needed strengthening, why would we ask the committee to look at it? But you need a proper process."

Unsurprisingly, that didn't go down well with the largely environmentalist audience.

The Conservative spokesman also stopped short of calling for an 80% emissions reduction target, though Peter Ainsworth did provoke a rousing round of applause with his criticism of the government's performance on the environment.

He said: "The real test of this bill will be whether it's going to change the face of government and whether never again will we have grand words on climate change as the government gives the go ahead for a third Heathrow runway, or the first coal-fired power station to be built for thirty years or a renewable fuel obligation that will sacrifice the orang-utan in the name of the environment."

So, the Lib Dems' Steve Webb had a hard act to follow, but with a few jokes and some tough talk on their environment policies, he seemed largely to win the audience over. His is the only party to call publicly for an 80 percent reduction target to be inserted into the Climate Bill right now.

He said: "Hilary Benn's department is a minnow among wolves. He may not want a third runway at Heathrow or a new coal-fired power station, but he can't stop it. Defra - responsible for the biggest problem we have as a planet - is a piddling department which is broke. That's the brutal reality of where we're at."

After the speeches, the questions from the audience were largely good natured, though a few got some of the panel a little hot under the collar. The thorny subject of staunch Tory Nigel Lawson's new book, for example, and the delay in a new law banning plastic bags. Among the many subjects covered were recycling, feed-in tariffs and the London mayoral elections, to name but a few. Much hot air was spouted from all three politicians.

Tony Juniper received perhaps the biggest applause of the evening when he suggested the government should take the same approach to adverts for gas-guzzling cars as they did with tobacco and stick a big "This car could be bad for your planet" sign on the side of every Band G. I don't think he was serious.

So, a good natured debate was certainly had by all, but if the audience were hoping the debate might prompt an immediate public commitment to an even stronger climate bill, they went home disappointed.

Comments

[Khalid 8 May 2008 19:31:28]

Reading through some of the blogs herein, one woudl think that the world is abou to end and that its all the fault of the UK.
So, hang on just a minute dear green goddesses and look aroun as there are more than 300 contries within existence; whilst each and every one contributes towards the emission of many a carbon factor.
Today, this nonsense surroung global warming and green issues has been turned into a free press for printing money, thanks only to those who go about saying one thing and doing the entire opposite as Al Gore provides a fine example of both, climate control and carbon contribution.
Why on earth should UK citizens be the one to have such perverse impositions whilst pollutants as they are referred to travel through the air worldwide?
I pity the green goddesses for their lack of knowledge surrounding principles as I bet my bottom dollat, when the sit [Underneath The Sky] and enjoy an [Oasis] or two, they could not care less what the wear, how its produced let alone think of the counteractions of their actions. Confused? plane stupid springs to mind!

[Justin, Buckinghamshire 1 May 2008 14:05:24]

Is climate change the result of man’s disruption of the environment? Many think it is and warn that if we don’t do something immediately we are heading for big trouble. Even if global warming isn’t entirely our fault it makes complete sense to preserve and look after the planet.

-conservation and recycling (many commercial businesses are still not recycling anything)
-clean energy - reduce pollution and greenhouse gases
-respect the ecosystem and climate balance
-human population control – family planning – the planet can only support so many people.
-pursue all green issues (we are ‘lagging’ behind other European countries like Germany and Scandinavia).
-25% world energy currently derives from coal – make burning coal as clean as possible if we must use it.
-Make a less disposable society, reduce all plastic packaging which goes straight into a landfill site and stays there for hundreds or thousands of years.
- more sustainable forests and trees (they give us oxygen and soak up some pollution)

[John, Wiltshire 26 Apr 2008 16:51:56]

I suggest that Tony Juniper have a badge attatched to his forehead that reads -

Danger to Human Life

Did you know that "Enemies of the Earth" as I refer to them, are personally responsible for more deaths than the Nazi's and Gengis Khan put together ever year as a result of their loony-tune ideas and theologies?

Non of which are proved I might add.

Why?

Well they are opposed to African nations developing power using the collosal natural resources they have and instead for medical surgeries, as a prime example, to use the most expensive and ineficient forms of power like solar or wind to power their surgeries where they have the choice of either keeping medical supplies refrigerated or turning on a light, but not both!!!

How is this morally right in one of the poorest areas of the world?

Then there is the whole question of denying them their right provide power and infrastructure as they have to huddle round a central fire for heating and cooking which produces thousands of times more "greenhouse gas emissions" than if they where to use electrical appliances and to add to that breath in a mass of carcinogens that result in breathing problems and usually premature death by the time they reach their mid thirties, if they are lucky.

How can you start a steel industry necessary for development and construction of infrastructures using a solar panel?

The answer is that you can't and Tony Juniper and his band of collective hypoctitical idiot know this all to well.

I am a realist, I understand that their is a finite amount of oil & gas etc. so there is a need to find alternatives and believe it or not I think ideas such as feed in taffifs and recyling are a good idea as long as those that recycle are given a financial incentive to do so. I am old enough to remember a time where you took your bottles back and got a few pence for them, now however, you have to pay the people to recycle who then take that and sell it on at massive profits to a corporation who sells it back to you and the whole cycle repeats its self without costs being reduced accordingly.

I also don't believe that OAP's should not be castigated as henious criminals for merely keeping the heating on to keep themselves alive in winter, what does Tony Juniper propose, millions of OAP's should die every year to "save the planet" as they are scum for using electricity or gas?

I wonder what Tony Junipers position on the "winter fuel allowance" is, as this is practically state funded increase in "carbon footprint" isn't it?

So who are the criminals, the government? or the OAP who merely wants to stay alive to see next spring?

Could you ask Tony Juniper that one next time you bump into him as i'd be interested in his response.

[Jan Lincs 25 Apr 2008 23:03:51]

Having just watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" for the second time on Sky followed by his interview with Clive Anderson I should like to say a huge thank you to Sky for taking some moral responsibility for this issue.
During the film Gore shows a set of scales with three bars of gold on one scale and the planet earth on the other. He humourously views each item to decide which weighs in as the most valuable?
It is a very sad observation on our society that he should even feel the need to draw people's attention to this stupidity in our political arena. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that our politicians'and now the majority of the population are more interested in gold!! Therefore a politician's logical conclusion to the problem, rather than reduce creature comforts, has to be to reduce the primary cause of global warning - people!!!
It's called Population Control, but most of us are so brainwashed by the gutter press that we believe what we are primed to believe. Sky being the exception to this with Channel 4 following close on their heels.
How many people out their knew that the US senate are currently invstigating the the US chemical industry for corruption of public health or that Canada is about to ban plastic baby bottles for their toxicity?
Does our government tell us? Did our press report it?
Back to Al Gore and his integrity. As he said, will you be able to face your grandchildren and say you did the right thing - that's if they are alive.
Thank you Sky. It's a pity that people's own comfort zones have become too important to them to care about their grandchildren's future.