80 per cent – the reaction

Today's commitment from the government to increase its legally-binding target for cutting UK emissions from 60 to 80 per cent, prompted a mixed reaction from green groups who welcomed the new goal but argued more detail was required on how the government plans to deliver such large scale emission reductions.

Responding to Ed Miliband's confirmation the government will increase emission reduction targets in line with the recommendations of the climate change committee, WWF chief executive David Nussbaum said the announcement marked a "great step forward" that delivered "recognition that cuts of at least 80 per cent are needed for a safe climate, and that we simply cannot ignore emissions from aviation and shipping".

Greenpeace chief scientist Dr Doug Parr offered similar praise, hailing the announcement as "a hugely encouraging first move from the new Climate Change secretary".

"Ed Miliband obviously understands the urgency of the threat we face from climate change," he added. "He is absolutely right to say Britain should set an example to the rest of the world in tackling this issue, and we will support him wholeheartedly if the decisions he takes in the coming weeks and months genuinely reflect this ambition."

Craig Bennett of the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change also welcomed the new target, but warned that it had to be matched by a "step change in policy and action".

"Our position has always been that carbon targets should be guided by the science, so we welcome the move," he said. "But there needs to be recognition that urgent changes are needed to both policy and practice."

He added that the government also needed to sign up to interim targets for 2020 and 2030. "We can't be in a situation where everything is left until 2049, there needs to be action now," he said.

However, while welcoming the decision to include emissions from aviation and shipping in the target, Friends of the Earth expressed concern that the two sectors would not be formally incorporated into the climate change bill.

"Miliband's admission that pollution from international aviation and shipping will be dealt with outside the Bill is a sign that these industries are being picked out for special treatment yet again," said the lobby group's executive director, Andy Atkins. "The Committee on Climate Change made it clear that we have to reduce all carbon emissions by 80 per cent. We cannot leave the cuts in aviation and shipping emissions to chance."

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed aviation and shipping would not be covered by the climate change bill, but argued that this was in line with the recommendations put forward by climate change committee chairman Adair Turner.

"The recommendations said aviation and shipping should not be included in the bill as there is still no international agreement on how to manage carbon from these sectors," he said. "But they did say the long term goal should be to include the sectors in the targets and deliver an international deal, and that is our position."

The government's surprise announcement that it will table an amendment to the energy bill that will allow for the launch of a feed-in tariff prompted a similarly mixed response, with the Renewable Energy Association (REA) criticising the government for limiting the proposals to electricity generation and failing to include renewable heat.

Speaking in the Commons, Miliband said further announcements would be made about the government's plans for renewable heat, suggesting a feed-in tariff for low carbon heat technologies, such as solar water heaters and ground source heat pumps, will not be incorporated in the energy bill.

"Our understanding is that there will be another consultation on renewable heat, but we've had five years of consultations, what we need is a feed-in tariff," said Leonnie Greene, spokeswoman for the REA. "Heat systems are among the cheapest renewable technologies and are meant to meet a third of the UK's renewable energy target. If they had been included in the proposed feed-in tariff, we really would have had the foundations for a bottom-up renewable energy revolution."