English: I understand the argument, I also understand the evidence, and the evidence from the UK Climate Change Committee shows that is not the case, because if you are building more roads, you have embodied carbon in the roads themselves, which are considerable generators of emissions. The production of the extra cars that'll come from the extra road space in themselves generate carbon. And even if you had 100 per cent electric cars, which is many years off, you're still requiring extra energy to be generated to power them, on top of all the other negative benefits we have from car domination in our towns and cities, with the sprawl of out-of-town shopping threatening and throttling town centres being one, which I also hear them bemoaning. So, I'm afraid the argument just does not withstand the scrutiny of the facts. But I don't think they're interested in the facts; they're interested in winding people up instead of confronting the hard choices that we, as a society, have to face to make progress against this societal existential challenge. And, again, I tell Members that in order to reach the climate change targets we've all signed up to, we need to make more cuts in the next 10 years to emissions than we managed over the whole of the last 30 years. I've not heard a single serious proposal from the Conservatives as to how they would do that, and I would ask them to go away and reflect, and make a constructive contribution to the challenges ahead of us. Turning to some of the other contributions that deserve more serious responses, I couldn't have agreed more with Delyth Jewell that what we need to be doing is improving public transport before we start thinking about tolling. But as Jenny Rathbone rightly pointed out, it is the Conservative Government who have said that by the end of this decade, diesel and petrol cars will not be allowed by law to be sold, and that means the whole method of the tax base will need to be changed. If you do not have petrol cars, you cannot charge petrol tax; you therefore need to find another way of generating the £40 billion that Jenny Rathbone cited. I really like to hear the ideas from the Conservative benches, because they really are an engine of innovative ideas this afternoon so far of how to generate that revenue. But charging people for the amount they drive is probably a sensible idea; it's certainly one their own Government's Treasury is looking at as we speak. But again, this isn't about a serious debate with a serious engagement of ideas; this is about clickbait and trying to put leaflets out amongst people who are concerned about the choices that we all have to face as a society. We do have serious plans for modal shift, for improving public transport, for giving people real and realistic alternatives along with a campaign of behaviour change, to give people the incentives and the information to try and encourage them into different behaviours. I apologise to Members for not being able to cover all of the valid points that they made, but I thought it was deserved time, trying to unpick the nonsense we've heard from the Conservative Party, so that we can start as a Senedd to focus on real solutions to real problems rather than the piffle of the opposition.
Welsh: Rwy'n deall y ddadl, rwyf hefyd yn deall y dystiolaeth, ac mae'r dystiolaeth gan Bwyllgor Newid Hinsawdd y DU yn dangos nad yw hynny'n wir, oherwydd os ydych yn adeiladu mwy o ffyrdd, rydych wedi ymgorffori carbon yn y ffyrdd eu hunain, sy'n gynhyrchwyr allyriadau sylweddol. Mae cynhyrchu'r ceir ychwanegol a ddaw o'r gofod ffordd ychwanegol ynddo'i hun yn cynhyrchu carbon. A hyd yn oed pe bai gennych 100 y cant o geir trydan, rhywbeth sydd flynyddoedd lawer i ffwrdd, rydych yn dal i fod angen cynhyrchu ynni ychwanegol i'w pweru, ar ben yr holl fanteision negyddol eraill sydd gennym o fod gormod o geir yn ein trefi a'n dinasoedd, gyda lledaeniad siopau y tu allan i'r dref yn bygwth ac yn lladd canol trefi yn un, ac rwy'n eu clywed yn cwyno am hynny hefyd. Felly, mae arnaf ofn nad yw'r ddadl yn gwrthsefyll craffu ar y ffeithiau. Ond nid wyf yn credu bod ganddynt ddiddordeb yn y ffeithiau; mae ganddynt ddiddordeb mewn cynhyrfu pobl yn hytrach na wynebu'r dewisiadau anodd y mae'n rhaid i ni, fel cymdeithas, eu hwynebu i wneud cynnydd yn erbyn yr her gymdeithasol ddirfodol hon. Ac unwaith eto, rwy'n dweud wrth yr Aelodau, er mwyn cyrraedd y targedau newid hinsawdd yr ydym i gyd wedi ymrwymo iddynt, mae angen inni wneud mwy o doriadau yn y 10 mlynedd nesaf i allyriadau nag y llwyddasom i'w gwneud dros y 30 mlynedd diwethaf. Nid wyf wedi clywed un cynnig difrifol gan y Ceidwadwyr ynglŷn â sut y byddent yn gwneud hynny, a hoffwn ofyn iddynt feddwl am hynny, a gwneud cyfraniad adeiladol i'r heriau sydd o'n blaenau. I droi at rai o'r cyfraniadau eraill sy'n haeddu ymateb mwy difrifol, rwy'n cytuno'n llwyr gyda Delyth Jewell mai'r hyn sydd angen inni ei wneud yw gwella trafnidiaeth gyhoeddus cyn inni ddechrau meddwl am dollau. Ond fel y nododd Jenny Rathbone yn gywir, y Llywodraeth Geidwadol sydd wedi dweud na fydd hi'n gyfreithlon i werthu ceir diesel a phetrol erbyn diwedd y degawd hwn, ac mae hynny'n golygu y bydd angen newid yr holl sylfaen drethu. Os nad oes gennych geir petrol, ni allwch godi treth ar betrol; felly mae angen i chi ddod o hyd i ffordd arall o gynhyrchu'r £40 biliwn y cyfeiriodd Jenny Rathbone ato. Hoffwn glywed y syniadau oddi ar feinciau'r Ceidwadwyr, oherwydd maent yn beiriant syniadau arloesol y prynhawn yma hyd yn hyn ynglŷn â sut i gynhyrchu'r refeniw hwnnw. Ond mae'n debyg fod codi tâl ar bobl yn ôl faint y maent yn ei yrru yn syniad synhwyrol; mae'n sicr yn syniad y mae Trysorlys eu Llywodraeth eu hunain yn edrych arno wrth inni siarad. Ond unwaith eto, nid oes a wnelo hyn â dadl ddifrifol i drafod syniadau difrifol; mae hyn yn ymwneud ag abwyd clicio a cheisio dosbarthu taflenni i pobl sy'n pryderu am y dewisiadau sy'n rhaid i bob un ohonom eu hwynebu fel cymdeithas. Mae gennym gynlluniau difrifol ar gyfer newid dulliau teithio, ar gyfer gwella trafnidiaeth gyhoeddus, ar gyfer rhoi dewisiadau amgen go iawn a realistig i bobl ynghyd ag ymgyrch newid ymddygiad, i roi'r cymhellion a'r wybodaeth i bobl er mwyn ceisio eu hannog i ymddwyn yn wahanol. Rwy'n ymddiheuro i'r Aelodau am fethu ymdrin â'r holl bwyntiau dilys a wnaethant, ond roeddwn yn meddwl ei bod yn werth rhoi amser i geisio datglymu'r nonsens a glywsom gan y Blaid Geidwadol fel y gallwn ddechrau canolbwyntio fel Senedd ar atebion go iawn i broblemau go iawn yn hytrach na malu awyr yr wrthblaid.