A couple of points -

1/ Whatever one thinks of Ken Livingstone, he has ‘bitten the bullet’ to try and charge people driving into the centre of London on a ‘the polluter pays’ principle. But the mayoral office relies on voters’ support, which for painful measures to do with the environment will not always be forthcoming. To what extent should the Lords adopt a kind of ‘Auntie Knows Best’ approach due to the severity of the issue, and to what extent should it rely on winning ‘hearts and minds’, and not impose draconian legislation until the public at large are ‘on board’ ??

2/ Leaving aside the fraught debate over Heathrow expansion for the moment – could or should the Lords have a say in bringing aviation emissions within the scope of international agreements, such as Kyoto or its descendants ?? Although currently representing around 3% of emissions, this could rise to 15%.

3/ Is there mileage in the argument that implementing the measures to offset climate change cannot, by definition, be done at a level severe enough to make a difference, whilst relying on government at a country level, and should therefore be delegated upward to supra national bodies like the EU, UN or WTO ? Will this be totally counter-productive or can the House of Lords, whose ‘members’ are not so governed by short-term political considerations make a difference?