• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Clive Lewis's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate

We've found 62 Parliamentary debates in which Clive Lewis has spoken about climate-related matters.

Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.

• 2 Dec 2025: Budget Resolutions

  17:52

  The crisis of our democracy, the crisis of social democracy, is inseparable from the cost of living crisis. They are driven by the same forces: first by the climate emergency, which now one of the biggest drivers of inflation through water stress, food insecurity, rising extra costs and global supply shocks. Secondly, the ability of Governments to act in the public interest is being weakened. Silicon valley and finance capital now wield increasing power over our daily lives. Thirdly, the loss of democratic agency leaves us exposed to corporate extraction: extreme price gouging; essential services like water, food and energy run as cash machines; and monopolies with almost no restraint.

  [Source]

• 1 Jul 2025: Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

  17:11

  What does explain our dilemma is the fact that work itself has fundamentally changed. Jobs are less secure and often poorly paid, and many who work full time still need benefits because wages do not meet the basic costs of housing, food, childcare and utilities. On top of this, the cost of living crisis is being driven by a toxic mix of structural failures. The climate crisis has increased volatility in the global supply chains of everything from microchips to semiconductors, pushing up food and energy costs. At the same time, companies operating under monopoly and oligopoly conditions, particularly in the energy, water and food sectors, have taken advantage of this disruption to engage in price gouging, driving profits sky high while families struggle to make ends meet.

  [Source]

• 28 Mar 2025: Water Bill

  The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent.

  The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away.

  But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country—

  [Source]

  If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason.

  My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it.

  [Source]

• 28 Jan 2025: Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

  17:01

  First, I thank EFRA Ministers for the work they have done on this Bill, and for everything they have been doing in working on the consultation. It is quite clear to most of the public that not only is England’s privatised model of water failing, but it is an extreme ideological outlier. It is one of the worst for costs and results. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is chuntering away in his place. We need a long-term, patient approach, especially given the climate crisis, and that is fundamentally incompatible with privatisation.

  [Source]

• 24 Jan 2025: Climate and Nature Bill

  10:11

  We have this stubborn inflation that will not go away, and we cannot seem to get growth in our economy. This is the climate crisis—this is what it looks like. We were warned about it by Stern decades ago, but it is here now. We need to do something about it; in fact, we need to do a lot about it. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is chuntering away—he is more than welcome to make an intervention, if he wishes. If he does not, I will continue.

  I want to talk about something that we in this place still do not quite get: the interconnectedness between climate and nature. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds discussed that very well, and I want to tease it out a bit further. Many of us now see tackling the climate crisis as an economic opportunity. I understand that, and there is a lot of mileage in it. However, it is quite possible to tackle the climate crisis—to build solar farms and wind farms, and do all the things that decarbonise—yet still kill the biodiversity of the planet. It is entirely possible to do both. Now that many of us in this place understand the climate crisis, we have to ensure that we also understand the nature and biodiversity crisis.

  [Source]

  10:18

  I was invited down to the ancient woodland, and yes, there were bats there. I know that the proposed carbon offsetting would have meant the planting of tens of thousands of new saplings to replace the ancient woodland, which would have ensured that the carbon sequestration took place and that we could still hit our climate targets. However, I went down there and saw a flint axe head. I saw an ancient oak woodland that had been there for tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of years. The complex biodiversity that was there—the insects, the birds, the mycelium networks underneath the ground—was beautiful. I could feel how old it was, and it was going to be bulldozed over and replaced with tens of thousands of saplings somewhere else in Norfolk.

  [Source]

  At that point, I understood that it is entirely possible for us to hit our climate targets as we rip up and destroy a 10,000 or 50,000-year-old woodland. At that moment, I realised that I could never allow the road to be built. We can look at the Amazon forest and campaign about what should not be happening there, but what about our own backyards? There is a question for the Government —my Government or any Government—about growth: what kind of growth do we want? No one is answering that question. Do we want sustainable growth? What is growth about? What are we growing? Are we growing pollution in our rivers? Are we growing roads that go through ancient woodlands? Yes, that is growth, but is it the growth we want? Do we not want to see growth in well-paid adult social care or renewable technology? Do we not want to see growth in rewilding or sustainable farming? Those are the areas where I want to see economic growth. I do not want to see growth that comes at the cost of my daughter and her generation’s future. That is the kind of decision that we in this country and this Government have to make.

  [Source]

  Choices need to be made here. Many of my constituents cannot afford to fly. Everyone wants to see their constituents benefit from the economy, and if we go down that path of expansion, we will be heading in the wrong direction. There will be many Members on both the Government and the Opposition Benches who do not want to see that. I believe that expanding Heathrow is incompatible with having a genuine approach to biodiversity and climate. The Climate Change Committee has already stated, before we even get to the seventh carbon budget, that this should not happen. We will need to have a very hard, honest conversation about that. I do not think it should happen.

  [Source]

• 3 Sep 2024: Healthcare Provision: East of England

  09:33

  One consequence of the situation in Norfolk is that there are regularly hundreds of hospital patients who are medically fit to leave but unable to be discharged. It is clear that our healthcare system is struggling to respond to today’s crisis, but it is also unprepared for the challenges of the future. East Anglia is the UK region most at risk from early climate impacts, and there is clear evidence of the link between climate breakdown and ill health. For example, from 2022 to 2023 the number of flood reports in Norfolk doubled, and stretches of Norwich are predicted to flood year after year. Victims of flooding in the UK are nine times more likely to experience long-term mental health issues, and flooding is linked to a greater instance of respiratory diseases because of dampness.

  [Source]

• 30 Jul 2024: Topical Questions

  I thank the Foreign Secretary and his team for the £500,000 committed to the Caribbean after the devastation on Grenada and Carriacou as a result of Hurricane Beryl, but can I press him and the team on the fact that the Caribbean is at the sharp end of the climate crisis? Will he tell the House what plans he has to advocate at COP29 for a replacement of the $100 billion climate finance deal?

  [Source]

• 23 Jul 2024: Immigration and Home Affairs

  18:30

  I am hoping, for colleagues’ sake, that I have to make this contribution to the King’s Speech debate only once; believe me, doing things twice is not what it is cracked up to be. Either way, it makes a wonderful change to be on the Government Benches to speak in a King’s Speech debate in which for once stability eclipses chaos, renewal surpasses decay and hope trumps despair. Let me tell my new colleagues that it is not usually like this, at least it has not been for the past nine or 10 years, maybe longer. Too often, we have been here making speeches that mourn the erosion of our democracy and our rights at work and that can only bemoan the continual and unceasing scapegoating of our communities, the destruction of our rivers, the undermining of our judicial system, the betrayal of international human rights and the deepening of a climate crisis. But not today, because this King’s Speech is a veritable cornucopia of progressive policies pregnant with the potential to unpick decades of drift and deterioration. I would not try to say that after a couple of pints.

  I want to conclude with this observation. The true risk to this country is not the rivers of blood, as some would have us believe, but rather rivers of excrement and rivers running dry. In only a few decades’ time, my constituency might not have drinking water, because of a combination of the climate crisis and corporate corruption in the form of price gouging and criminal levels of under-investment. Immigration and asylum did not lead us here any more than membership of the EU did. Failing institutions, the erosion of democracy and economic failure brought us here. It is that our Government must fix, so let us get to it.

  [Source]

• 22 May 2024: Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report

  14:28

  “convene a process to examine the potential issue of juries acquitting defendants and judges applying laws differently when they are transgressed in the name of progressive causes like climate change and anti-racism”.

  [Source]

• 19 Mar 2024: Strength of the Economy

  11:38

  According to the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute, the Government’s current programme for investment to mitigate the worst effects of climate change will still see climate change damage to the UK increase from 1.1% of GDP to 3.3% by 2050 and 7.4% by the end of the century. To put it into context, that is the United Kingdom’s entire social care budget of around £25 billion. The Climate Change Committee has said that the current approach to adaptation

  [Source]

• 13 Mar 2024: National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No.2) Bill

  15:14

  Of course, in keeping with the creed of those on the Government Benches, the better off people are, the more this tax cut will pay out to them. For those on £20,000 a year or so, the cut is worth about £150 a year; for those on £50,000 and above, it is worth almost £750. But whether it is a tax cut of £150 or £750, this Bill does nothing to rebuild our shattered public services, nothing to bring down NHS waiting times, nothing to adapt this country to the approaching climate crisis, and nothing to fix our broken adult social care system. As the Resolution Foundation noted, public sector investment spending—a key driver of growth—is set to fall by 31% as a share of GDP between 2024 and 2029. That is a real-terms cut equivalent to £17 billion.

  [Source]

• 19 Sep 2023: Area-based Home Retrofit Schemes

  12:00

  Second time lucky. The Minister may be surprised— [Laughter]— to hear the following words leave my lips, and I know I am: I agree with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), in her claim that low and middle-income households cannot afford to pay for the transition to net zero. Where we differ is that I do not believe that we should let the planet burn, as she does. Instead, the wealthy must pay for the green transition. Will the Minister commit to income and wealth redistribution and finally give households and local authorities the ability to transition successfully?

  [Source]

• 5 Sep 2023: Energy Bill [Lords]

  16:51

  There are some in this House who claim that tackling the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis is a zero-sum game; that we can only do one or the other. The amendment blows a hole right through that falsehood. The reality of the current system in use by the Government is that too many people—millions of them and growing—are falling into fuel poverty. It is a system that simply is not fit for purpose. Let us be clear. Higher energy prices are not a blip. They are here to stay. Research from Cornwall Insight shows that energy prices will remain

  Up and down the UK, energy debt is soaring. Citizens Advice reports that nearly 8 million people borrowed to pay their bills in the first six months of this year. A quarter of people say that their energy bill is the cost they are most worried about. In my own city of Norwich, the rate of reporting fuel debts has increased by a staggering 300%. Yet by subsidising the unit price, the Government’s energy price guarantee disproportionately benefited well-off households and did nothing to incentivise energy demand reduction and decarbonisation.

  In one fell swoop, we will have protected essential energy needs, reduced bills and incentivised a ramping up of decarbonisation of our housing sector—crucial if we are to meet our net zero commitments. I urge and implore the House to support new clause 36.

  [Source]

• 8 Mar 2023: Financial Security and Reducing Inequality in the Caribbean: Government Role

  09:48

  It is potential that CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—and its 10-point plan for reparatory justice also recognises. Its reparations commission is working with initiatives such as Repair, set up by the entrepreneur Denis O’Brien. Their joint mission is for an EU and UK 25-year, multibillion-pound programme of reparation and repair and investment in the Caribbean, involving education, physical infrastructure, and science and technology, replicating the EU’s structural investment funding, which transformed the poorest countries and regions of the EU, including Ireland and Poland. The same can be done for the Caribbean. It can be given the tools to prosper, to make the jump to clean energy technologies, and to adapt to the climate crisis, by which it will be disproportionately affected. There have been centuries of carbon-intensive manufacturing, which the bodies of its people financed, but it receives no share of the bounty. The irony of the climate crisis is never lost on me—or on millions of other people around the planet.

  [Source]

• 18 Jul 2022: Extreme Heat Preparedness

  14:39

  Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that there are just too many climate deniers on the Government Benches, too many oil licences being granted, too many carbon budgets being missed and too many Government Members calling those who are concerned about the heatwave “snowflakes” for his Government to be considered anything other than part of the climate catastrophe? Anything that they say today means absolutely nothing when they have leadership candidates moving away from net zero. It is an absolute joke, and this Government are a joke when it comes to the climate crisis.

  [Source]

• 30 Jun 2022: Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Third sitting)

  12:19

  Q Can I make one point on that? I have to speak on behalf of many people in this country who would make the point that if you did not have animals as foodstuffs or even believe that we can keep them as pets—there are many people who think that; maybe not millions, but plenty—the fact that you are keeping them for the sole purpose of benefiting human beings, either as foodstuffs or for other products that they can create, is in itself part of the problem. I am just putting that down there. There is obviously a growing number of people who are becoming vegetarian and vegan with the climate crisis and so on who increasingly believe that. Now we are moving into a new phase of gene editing and all that comes with that.

  [Source]

• 28 Jun 2022: Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)

  15:05

  I am interested in your views, as individuals who operate in the private-public sphere. When it comes to food security and the climate crisis, I would have thought that profit maximisation will probably not be the route map to solving those problems. What is going to be needed is a private-public partnership where we get the best of both, but some things may cost more. It is going to cost us to tackle the climate crisis; it is going to cost us to ensure that we can feed the world with a climate crisis in the 21st century, so it is even more important that we get the regulatory framework right and that it is robust. Freedom from regulations for businesses means freedoms against consumers, the public and those who do not have access to those sciences to be able to utilise them.

  [Source]

  16:15

  I do not think that is a model that I would want to apply to food. Some of us would like to see something more robust that did not make the mistakes that we have made on pharmaceuticals, for example. Food supply is critical, especially as we move through the 21st century with the climate crisis and a growing population. When I was asking you questions as a BBC journalist a long time ago, I was always struck by your passion for the science and for communicating the science. As currently constructed, does the Bill provide the protections we need? Outside your laboratories, away from the pure science, there are free-market corporations for which the bottom line is the end game and the main driver. Do you feel that this science is beyond abuse and beyond being used in the same way that perhaps big pharma have cornered those markets?

  [Source]

• 23 May 2022: Public Order Bill

  I would like to comment on some of the engagement tonight from Government Members, because it is quite instructive. It is like a one-sided equation. They want to make this issue about the disruption to individuals and the cost to business, and although that is one side of the equation, there is another side to it: the disruption that the climate crisis is bringing to people around the world already and to this country. One thing that the House may or may not know is that, between 2010 and 2019, it is estimated that 5 million people have already died from the effects of the climate crisis. I understand that Government Members want to talk about an individual in an ambulance, an individual who has been disrupted, but we should think about the global disruption and what is happening around the world. Some 800,000 of those people were in Europe. This is not just happening elsewhere—it is happening here and now.

  [Source]

  19:29

  That individual has made their comments, but I guess the question we have to ask is who are the criminals. Are the criminals those individuals who are trying to come together collectively to stand up against a Government who are failing them on the climate crisis, or against billion-pound corporations with pockets deep enough to buy influence in Parliament and across politics? Are the criminals those individuals who are trying to use the only apparatus that they have to stand up and speak up for what they feel impassioned about? I would argue that the real criminals are those who are wilfully pushing to extract more oil from our oilfields and who are pushing us off an existential cliff edge. I think that this country and the British people increasingly understand that those are the people who need to be held to account.

  [Source]

  19:29

  Now freedom is being mentioned again, and this time it is freedom from protest. That means freedom against the public’s right and ability to hold big business and the Government to account for the climate destruction that they are undertaking. Opposition Members know which side Conservative Members are on. Increasingly, so do the British public. You may wrap this up in the ability of law and order to hold back the unwashed masses, but actually they are the people who are fighting for all our freedoms, for our future and for a world without a climate crisis fuelled by your friends in the big corporations and the oil sector. That is the reality.

  [Source]

• 18 May 2022: Achieving Economic Growth

  16:07

  Growth is an illusion that is partly responsible for driving three of the key challenges we now face: rising inequality, the erosion of democracy and the climate crisis. We have had GDP growth, albeit sluggish, over the past 12 years. Hence, by our main metric of choice, our collective wellbeing should have increased, even if only incrementally. That is the logic of the message we tell our constituents, “You’ve never had it so good because the economy is growing.”

  [Source]

• 15 Mar 2022: Ukraine

  16:19

  In terms of increasing expenditure on defence, we must first ensure that what we already spend is spent properly and efficiently. I do not think we can say that about the Ministry of Defence’s procurement, which is known across Government to be ineffective and inefficient—I need only mention the Ajax armoured vehicle to make the point that billions have been misallocated and spent inefficiently and ineffectively. Before we start talking about spending more, let us not forget that we are one of the biggest spenders on armaments in the world, dwarfing Russia—we spend more than Russia every year—and that global spend on armaments is approaching $2.5 trillion, which is 20 times larger than what we have pledged to spend on the climate crisis, the biggest existential threat facing humanity. I understand that all eyes are on Ukraine and Putin now, but we must understand that poverty, inequality and the climate crisis are the biggest drivers of global insecurity, and, while spending money on weapons and warfare is right and appropriate, we must put that into the context of appropriate spending on other areas.

  [Source]

• 21 Feb 2022: Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]

  19:18

  I rise to speak in support of new clauses 14, 15 and 11, which at their core support a just transition for North sea oil and gas workers by removing the barriers they face in transitioning into renewable energy, and ensuring that they can access the support and training needed. I may press new clause 14 to a vote if necessary.

  Research published in 2020 by Friends of the Earth Scotland, Platform and Greenpeace shone a light on the experiences of offshore oil and gas workers—I will come to some of their comments in a minute—and revealed a high level of concern about employment, job security and working conditions. However, it also showed a significant appetite to be a part of the transition to a zero-carbon economy, with over 80% of those surveyed saying they would consider moving to a job outside the oil and gas industry and over half choosing to transition into renewables and offshore wind if they had the opportunity to retrain and were supported in doing so. New clauses 14 and 15 would help to realise that ambition, while ensuring that in achieving our climate goals we do not leave communities behind and repeat the mistakes of the past.

  by moving to annual contracts for difference auctions, yet to genuinely realise this ambition, offshore workers must be supported to transition into renewables, not face multiple barriers to do that. This is a skilled workforce whose knowledge and experience are absolutely essential if we are to achieve the UK’s climate goals in a timely manner.

  What would these amendments do? New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to produce and implement a strategy to achieve the cross-sector recognition of core skills and training in the offshore energy sector, and to ensure that training standards bodies adopt a transferable skills and competency-based approach to training. Crucially, this strategy would apply to all workers whether they are directly employed or contract workers, and they would have to be consulted in its development. This amendment would enable oil and gas workers to access jobs in renewable energy. It would also mean that, while there are not sufficient jobs in renewable energy as capacity continues to be built up, workers are able to take contracts in both sectors and then move between them. It would prevent a skills drain as people leave the energy sector altogether due to difficulties with finding work, and the cost and time involved in maintaining training certificates.

  New clause 15, which is complementary, would establish a retraining guarantee for oil and gas workers seeking to leave the sector, thereby supporting them in transitioning to green energy jobs. It would also ensure that they are able to access advice on suitable jobs based on their existing skillsets, as well as the funding and training needed to transition. Again, all oil and gas workers are eligible for the retraining guarantee, as well as those who have recently left the sector. This amendment would provide clear pathways for oil and gas workers into clean energy, meaning they are not left behind in transitioning to a zero-carbon economy. It would also be infinitely more affordable if accompanied by new clause 14, meaning that workers are not required to duplicate training courses. Amendment 11 would ensure that the new clauses are applicable to Scotland, which is of course essential to facilitate a just transition for workers in the North sea.

  I hope that the Government look closely at these amendments and recognise that there is much more they need to do to genuinely support oil and gas workers and to make a just transition in this sector a reality.

  [Source]

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree entirely. We can already see, before the ink is dry on the COP26 agreement, that the Government are back-tracking. We only have to look at history. Many Conservative Members will look at what happened in the 1980s with the demise of the mining industry and say, “Well, we were the first to ensure that we decarbonised our economy,” when actually this was a tragedy. If we look at what happened with deindustrialisation and what happened in the mining industry, we see that actually the whole reason for the necessity of the levelling-up agenda is that there was not a just transition. This is an opportunity for us to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes as we have in the past, and that we play our part in making sure that we get to net zero in a timely manner. I think that is what most people in this House and out in the country would want, and on that I shall finish.

  [Source]

• 1 Feb 2022: Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

  16:31

  Is the hon. Gentleman not making an excellent case for a just transition, where taxes such as this, on those who have made billions—perhaps trillions—over the past century from sucking our resources out of the ground and making excessive profits, are invested to ensure that his constituents and the workers in those oilfields are entitled to a decent, sustainable, well-paid job?

  [Source]

• 18 Jan 2022: Levelling Up: East of England

  09:48

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and making such an excellent contribution to this debate. I notice that on transport infrastructure, he seems to be looking at a very 20th-century model, as if the climate crisis was not happening. Will he talk a little more about the kind of rapid transit systems that he envisages would take individuals off the roads in their cars and move them on to buses and trains, freeing up more of that road network system and helping the environment and ecological systems that are in place?

  [Source]

• 12 Jan 2022: Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis

  13:44

  Afghanistan, as has been heard, is facing an escalating and multi-faceted humanitarian crisis. In response, the United Nations launched its largest ever single country appeal, in part because the crisis in Afghanistan embodies a new breed of 21st century international crisis, where the hazards of war collide with the hazards of climate change and a global viral outbreak. This has created a nightmarish feedback loop that punishes some of the world’s most vulnerable and destroys their country’s ability to cope. So far, the UK’s response has been woeful. It took five months for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme to be put into place, while our aid commitment to Afghanistan in 2021 was lower than what was delivered in 2019.

  [Source]

• 1 Dec 2021: Limiting Global Heating

  11:54

  We know the oil of Cambo and the coal of Cumbria have to stay in the ground if we are to keep temperature rises at below 2.4°C. I say 2.4°C because that is the new reality after this year’s COP26. Will the COP President commit to stopping Cambo and the new coalmine in Cumbria, and end the climate hypocrisy that so undermined his presidency at COP26?

  [Source]

• 27 Oct 2021: Sustainability and Climate Change (National Curriculum)

  09:42

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich East—I mean for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)—on securing this debate. Sorry, that was a Freudian slip: everywhere is Norwich to me. The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech, but does he agree that, just as we should teach our children about the climate crisis and its onset, we should do so in schools and classrooms that are not belching out carbon at the same time? Is it not critical that this Government get on top of that and decarbonise the education estate by 2030 at the latest?

  [Source]

• 21 Oct 2021: COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

  13:57

  I will congratulate the Government on some of the work they have done, and continue to do, on moving towards rectifying our climate crisis. However, the analogy I would use it this: imagine we are all sat in a car heading off a cliff edge. What we actually need is a big, hard handbrake turn to avert that cliff edge. What we have at the moment are a Government who are gently taking their foot off the accelerator. Quite simply, that is not good enough. We need a big shove on the brakes: a big handbrake turn and a big skid to turn away from there. That is not happening. I am happy that they are taking their foot off the accelerator, but frankly, for where we are at the moment, that is simply not good enough. The depressing fact is that we are still having these debates. We are still talking about keeping the temperature down to 1.5° C, even though we know this is an existential threat. We are fiddling not just while Rome burns, but while the planet burns. For those of us who have known about this for 30 years or more, that is frankly ridiculous and future generations will never forgive us.

  The 2021 IPCC report was a code red for humanity, but alas a green light for business as usual for this Government. As I said earlier this week, there are two problems with the Government’s net zero strategy: net and zero. Zero, because we know, as those who were quick enough to get on the internet and see what documents the Government had put up will have seen, that aviation emissions will be increasing well beyond 2035. We will be pumping out millions of tonnes into the atmosphere well beyond 2035 and beyond 2050. And net, because the negative emission technology we are relying on to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere does not exist at scale yet and shows no signs of doing so.

  Let us be honest: I believe the net zero strategy is classic greenwash, big on soundbites, small on detail and absolutely limited on systemic change—the kind of systemic change that we need if we are to avert a climate crisis.

  [Source]

• 19 Oct 2021: Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

  13:05

  There are two problems with the Government’s net zero strategy: “net” and “zero”. The latter because it is not zero—we know there are sectors, such as aviation, that will be pumping out millions of tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere beyond 2050—and the former because we know the Government are relying on negative emissions technologies that, frankly, are based on science fiction and for which there is no prospect of mass roll-out. We are banking on this to rescue us from the climate crisis, but it is a “burn now, pay later” strategy that is not fit for purpose.

  [Source]

• 14 Jul 2021: Health and Care Bill

  With the climate crisis and the reality of an ageing population, there has never been a better time for the Government to centre the wellbeing of people and planet and the way in which public services and the economy are run. Sadly but unsurprisingly, the Bill fails in this context, so I will vote against it, because it does not fundamentally deal with the very real issues facing our healthcare system. It does not address the desert of NHS England providing oral and dental healthcare, which has made it impossible for my constituents to get an appointment. It does not guarantee fair pay and conditions for the key workers who have seen us through the pandemic, and it does not deal with the scandalous state of mental health- care. Patients in my constituency are in crisis, are discharged too early, or not admitted at all, while for a decade, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has failed to end the practice of sending patients out of area.

  [Source]

• 20 Apr 2021: Climate Change: International Co-operation and the Global South

  What diplomatic steps his Department is taking ahead of COP26 to work with partners in the global south to tackle climate change.

  [Source]

  A recent Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change report says the world’s wealthiest 1% need to emit 30 times less carbon than they currently do by 2030 if we are to have a fair transition to net zero and, according to the science, save the lives and livelihoods of millions, perhaps billions, of the world’s poorest from the worst effects of the climate emergency. Given the stakes and given the UK’s historical and disproportionate carbon emissions, will the Minister commit to ensuring that not a single penny from the public purse will be used to fund or subsidise the fossil fuel industry, including through development aid?

  [Source]

• 4 Mar 2021: Income Tax (Charge)

  14:10

  As we know, the context of the Budget yesterday was a debilitating global pandemic. It was also the last Budget before the UK hosts the COP26 climate conference. It was therefore arguably the most critical Budget since the second world war. I say “critical” because my friends, my family and my community matter to me, and having a viable future for them and myself matters to me. I saw so many of them struggling before the pandemic because of this Government, and now even more are struggling because of this Government.

  What the people of this country needed from the Chancellor’s Budget yesterday was so much more than simply a reaction to the crisis at hand. What the people of this country needed was a strategy that would support all people and businesses struggling amid the pandemic, tackle the rising epidemic of inequality and debt, initiate a massive programme of decarbonisation, invest in local authorities and public services—the backbone of the successful part of the pandemic response—and rebuild our town and city centres as the vibrant hubs of sustainable communities and community activity. By those measures, the Chancellor’s Budget has failed on every single metric.

  What I have seen in the pandemic is the best of the British people and the worst of this Conservative Government. In my constituency of Norwich South, I have seen care and compassion in the face of adversity, and I have seen the power of collective action in public services such as our NHS and schools, which stepped up to carry this country through extreme circumstances. In this Conservative Government, I have seen corruption and cronyism as well as indifference to growing inequality and climate change. That is ingrained in the detail of this Budget, which is going to punish the public and our public services, instead of taking the transformative action needed to support the livelihoods of all people and businesses, not just today but for generations to come.

  This Budget will entrench inequality and it failed to tackle the climate crisis. It will be the job of those of us on this side of the House to remind the public in the years to come that these were the choices of this Government and this Chancellor.

  [Source]

• 24 Feb 2021: Topical Questions

  The UK’s credibility as COP president rests on demonstratable climate action at home, yet much like the Government’s failed pandemic response, which has left 130,000 people dead, the Government are acting too slowly, prioritising profit over public wellbeing. The Government’s boasts of our road building, and their plans of cutting £1 billion from the public rail infrastructure budget and allowing the Cumbria coalmine to go ahead are simply not compatible with achieving net zero. Will the Minister therefore admit that the Government’s stated ideological beliefs are incompatible with even their own meagre climate goals?

  [Source]

• 15 Jan 2020: A Green Industrial Revolution

  16:44

  Later this year, the UK will host the COP26 gathering of nations still struggling to set up a robust framework to avoid climate breakdown. It is an opportunity for Britain to lead rather than just to host. Are there any measures in this Queen’s Speech to show how we will do this? No, of course there are not. Has anyone actually told the PM that one cannot just turn up to COP and go, “Bing, bang, boom, bong, phwoar, climate crisis!”? We have to stand on our record, and this Government do not have one. Members do not have to take my word for it. In its latest assessment, the Committee on Climate Change said that the UK is not

  Ultimately, I fear that nothing we say in this place will change the mind of this Government. The entirety of this Government’s mandate has been founded on one thing, which is to get Brexit done—it pains me to say that. When we understand that this is a hard right political project, we will understand that this Government have no intention of facing up to the climate crisis. Brexit has always been about trade deals that do not give a damn about climate, inequality or the global south. It is about deregulation that lets corporations raping our planet do so with ever more impunity. That is what Brexit is actually about, and that is why the Queen’s Speech has failed even the most basic of tests.

  [Source]

• 7 Jan 2020: Carbon Emissions

  14:45

  For what have been described as a “post-truth” Government, here are two clear and simple facts: first, COP 26 is coming to the UK and, secondly, the eyes of the world will be on this Government’s climate crisis policies—or, rather, the appalling lack of them. As Australia burns, millions in African states face climate-driven famine and floods have swept the north of England, will this Government give a damn about this existential threat and act, not posture?

  [Source]

• 17 Oct 2019: The Climate Emergency

  15:15

  It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) who I believe is one of the few Conservative Members who gets the scale of the challenge before us. Most Members of the House agree that something needs to be done, but the difference between many Conservative Members and Labour Members comes down to the speed, scale and ambition of that change. For example, in 2017 the Government’s manifesto stated that they would plant 11 million trees over five years in their efforts to challenge and tackle the climate crisis. Compare that with Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in the world, which has just planted 350 million trees in 12 hours. That tells us everything we need to know about the scale of the Government’s ambition when it comes to tackling the climate crisis.

  [Source]

  15:17

  Labour Members are committed to nothing less than the total transformation of our economy—not just how it works, but for whom it works. So many of us who came into politics as Labour Members understand that the fight against the climate crisis is the fight against inequality. Why? Because we know that the poorest 50% of people in this country, and between countries, consume just 10% of the resources and emit just 10% of the carbon. The wealthiest 10% consume 50% of the resources and emit 50% of the carbon. It is therefore clear that the fight against climate change is also the fight against global and domestic inequality. The poor cannot give up what they do not have; they cannot give up carbon that they are not emitting. The people who can are those at the top—the top 10%; the top 1%. Those are the people who must give up their carbon and their use of resources.

  My hon. Friend—I will call her that—the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has said that the Queen’s Speech contained just six words about the environment, and there was not a single mention of the climate and ecological crisis facing our planet. That is hardly surprising, given this Government’s track record on the climate emergency. We have had a green light for fracking, and fossil fuel subsidies have been boosted by billions. Onshore wind has been scrapped and solar support axed. The green homes scheme has been eviscerated, and zero-carbon homes abandoned. The Green Bank has been sold, Swansea tidal lagoon stuffed, and Heathrow expansion approved. After 10 years of that, the Government tell us to trust them to tackle the climate crisis, but many Labour Members, and many members of the public, are extremely sceptical about their claims.

  That is the challenge. Can the Government prove mastery not just of themselves but of their ability to tackle the climate crisis? It is time to get a grip.

  [Source]

• 15 Jul 2019: BBC

  18:04

  When it comes to climate change, there is a weight of evidence among the scientific community, and then there are the ideas put about by right-wing think tanks, newspapers and politicians. Similarly, when it comes to debates about the BBC, there are the allegations of bias advanced by many of those same right-wing interests, and then there are the findings of independent academic research. What does the social scientific evidence tell us about BBC impartiality? One consistent finding is that the BBC allows the press and senior politicians to set the agenda for its reporting. In the BBC’s Bridcut report of 2007, it acknowledged that impartiality should mean representing a range of views in society, not just the perceived political centre ground or the balance of opinion in Westminster.

  [Source]

• 10 Jul 2019: Economic Growth and Environmental Limits

  The Minister spoke about the Green Book, which is still—despite the changes—essentially a neoclassical economic model based on equilibrium economics. Most scientists and economists on the fringes of economic thinking would tell us that we are moving into a disequilibrium position in our economic model. The two are completely incompatible and the Green Book is not fit for purpose as we enter a climate crisis in which many of its assumptions are no longer credible.

  [Source]

• 22 May 2019: Pension Funds: Financial and Ethical Investments

  15:07

  It is really good to hear hon. Members talk about climate change and greenhouse gases, but there are in fact nine planetary boundaries, of which greenhouse gases are one. I wonder whether people understand that it is entirely possible that we save the planet from climate change yet kill ourselves through eight of the other planetary boundaries, two of which we are in the red for. Is it not the case that financial markets, pension schemes and so on actually need to see their remit as wider than just greenhouse gases, also covering a range of other areas, including biodiversity and carbon?

  [Source]

• 1 May 2019: Environment and Climate Change

  17:15

  So often as politicians we talk about what is politically possible, but with the climate crisis we need to move from the art of the politically possible to the science of what is necessary. When you are drowning, you do not ask yourself, “Ooh, what is politically possible?”; you do whatever it takes to survive. When the banks crashed in 2008, the political consensus in this place was to save them by any means necessary. According to the National Audit Office, the cost was £1.2 trillion, which meant 10 years of austerity, public service cuts and vast human suffering. But now, instead of a banking collapse, we face a climate and ecological collapse. We face catastrophes of biblical proportions: droughts, pestilence, famine, floods, wildfires, mass migration, political instability, war and terrorism. Global civilisation as we know it will be gone by the end of the century unless we act.

  It was against that background—with the science of the climate crisis over here and Government policy over there—that Greta Thunberg, the youth strikers and Extinction Rebellion appeared. They arrived at the climate crisis debate like gatecrashers at a premature funeral, smashing through the window in a shower of glass to announce to a hushed congregation that the patient was still alive. Their message to this place is simple: “The time for incrementalism has passed. Act now, change now, or be swept away by those who will.”

  This motion offers us a chance to fundamentally restructure our economy to deliver good, secure, well-paid jobs as we mobilise to decarbonise our economy on a grand scale. It offers us a chance to reinvigorate and strengthen our democracy, to massively reduce social and economic inequalities, and to protect and restore vital threatened habitats and carbon sinks. We must onshore the global financial system, bringing it back under democratic control.

  [Source]

• 23 Apr 2019: Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

  16:29

  I welcome the Minister’s comments about listening to and acting on the science. If that is the case, the Committee on Climate Change has questioned whether support for oil and gas may become incompatible with the Government’s long-term climate change objectives. In the spirit of not disappearing down a rabbit hole of conflict, perhaps we can agree, on both sides of the House, on whether there is a sustainable way to reduce fossil fuel extraction to move from maximum economic recovery to sustainable economic recovery.

  [Source]

• 9 Apr 2019: Renewable Energy: Public Funding

  11:51

  Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to one of this country’s most successful publicly funded renewable energy programmes ever? I am of course talking about the last Labour Government’s export tariff, the feed-in tariff scheme, the biggest single democratisation of energy that the UK has ever seen, cutting 700,000 tonnes of carbon. This month, however, in an act of supreme national and international self-harm, the Government killed it off—kaput, finito, game over. In the real world, how can anyone, anywhere believe that this Government take their climate change obligations seriously?

  [Source]

• 20 Mar 2019: Insect Population

  11:11

  I praise my hon. Friend to the rafters for securing this debate, because it is quite clear to many people that it would be entirely possible for this country and this planet to save ourselves from climate change, yet destroy ourselves in myriad other ways that breach the other eight planetary boundaries. Picking up on that, does he agree that it is the world’s poorest—both internationally and domestically—who will be disproportionately impacted by the systemic climate shocks that these breakdowns in biodiversity will have on our economies?

  [Source]

• 19 Mar 2019: Feed-in Tariffs and Power Generation

  12:22

  From listening to the Government’s rhetoric on climate change, we could be forgiven for thinking that the school strikers are coming out in support of them; they are coming out against them, and if we cut through the greenwash we see the feed-in tariff axed, the solar energy sector decimated, and now the exports payments framework about to be ended and no replacement put in place. So let me ask this: will the Government ever announce a cut to the lavish support they dole out to their friends in the fossil fuel industry?

  [Source]

• 5 Mar 2019: New Technologies

  11:49

  I am sorry, but when it comes to funding the new technologies that really matter, this Government, and especially the Treasury, have been abysmal. The climate crisis is upon us now, but this Government’s reaction has been to axe carbon capture and storage funding; to cancel the Swansea lagoon, despite the fact that we were poised to be a world leader in tidal technology; and to slap innovative emerging storage technologies with business rates. At the same time, they are throwing billions into new tax breaks for oil and gas. Does the Chancellor agree that this Government are not facing the climate emergency but creating it?

  [Source]

• 28 Feb 2019: Net Zero Carbon Emissions: UK’s Progress

  15:30

  Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the IPCC report on a 1.5°C target said that we need to make the necessary reductions to our greenhouse emissions by 2030? Unfortunately, the Government are telling the Committee on Climate Change that they cannot look at that reduction until 2050. That seems to me to be a little bit late in the day.

  [Source]

  15:55

  I am speaking from the Back Benches, but I was appointed by the shadow Chancellor as the first ever shadow Minister for sustainable economics. The next Labour Government understand that we can no longer allow the Treasury’s short-termism and obsession with neo-classical economic orthodoxy to block the bold and radical fiscal, monetary and regulatory changes we need to deal with the climate crisis. Labour understands the scale of the challenge before us and the national and international purpose that we must set ourselves. It can be nothing less than a radical transformation of the way our economy works.

  We know that the wealthiest 10% are responsible for more than half of all greenhouse gas emissions on our planet and in our country, and yet we also know that the poorest 50% are responsible for just 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. This is not about a false choice between consumption for the poorest and the environment. The poor cannot cut what they are not consuming. We need to see a contraction and a convergence. The poorest in the world and in this country will need to consume more, and the wealthiest—not just individuals, but corporations—will need to do more of their fair share. That is a challenge to the economic orthodoxy that those on the Conservative Benches champion.

  That is the challenge before us, and we can see what happens when we do not ensure that social justice is at the heart of the changes we make. If we look at the gilets jaunes movement in France, we see that it happened because of the technocratic centrist fixes the Macron Government were trying to make. There were €40 billion of carbon taxes, yet only a small fraction of that was invested in public transport or for the poorest, and it fell disproportionately on those least able to pay, who are actually those consuming the least carbon. As a result, there was not one single tax on French aviation fuel. That is what caused the frustration and anger in France—inequality and a lack of justice at the heart of that economic policy.

  How did we respond to climate change and the sustainability issues facing us in the UK? We decided to expand Heathrow—fantastic! I think the Heathrow issue is probably one of the most decisive splits we will see in politics in the coming years. It is the biggest single source of emissions in the UK, and the expansion has now given the green light to 300 million tonnes more of carbon being poured into our atmosphere. No Government who aspire to tackle the climate crisis and to keep temperature rises below 1.5°C would ever allow Heathrow to happen.

  Let us quickly run through some of the failings of this Government. They have slashed solar subsidies, blocked onshore wind and prevented a closed-loop reuse and recycling sector. They have supported fracking, privatised the Green Investment Bank and supported Heathrow expansion. They have blocked mandatory climate risk-related reporting for the finance sector, they have never issued a green bond, and they have axed their own flagship energy efficiency policy. Those young people were not just calling for incremental change. They were calling not for climate change, but for system change.

  [Source]

• 16 Jan 2019: No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

  18:24

  Let me deal with an issue that the House and, in particular, the Government have failed to adequately address: the impending climate catastrophe and biodiversity loss. Above all else, given the timescales we are talking about, this is a calamity waiting to happen, but the Government are comprehensively failing on it. Time after time, we hear the greenwash from Conservative Members that they will do what it takes on the environment. They slashed solar subsidies, with 9,000 job losses; and fracking has been announced, put forward and is now actually happening, and not just in this country—they are also doing it in China, with taxpayers’ money. The climate science tells us that we need to leave that gas in the ground—80% of it—and that this cannot happen. In the words of that legend of Norwich, Delia Smith, I say to those on the Government Benches, “Let’s be ’avin’ you.” Let us have that general election. Let us have that vote. Support this motion.”

  [Source]

• 15 Jan 2019: Local Government Funding

  15:27

  Let us consider the challenges that this country and our children will face in the coming century, such as climate change, the loss of biodiversity, rampant inequality, threats to our democracy, and undreamed of technological changes. Surely it is nothing less than criminal to pursue policies that will cut the social and educational tools that people will need to navigate their way through those coming challenges.

  [Source]

• 6 Dec 2018: Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)

  14:09

  With your leave, Mr Howarth, I will speak to amendments 120 and 121, and press them to a vote if necessary, before moving on to other significant questions that we feel need answering in relation to the clause. As numerous environmental non-governmental organisations, scientists and even the chair of the Committee on Climate Change have observed, the Government are failing to tackle the climate crisis that is already upon us, and we believe that that is reflected in their policy on air travel. There is an awkward mismatch between our world-leading climate change legislation and our policy and prevailing political attitudes towards aviation.

  The purpose of amendment 120 is to force the Government to share with Parliament the impact, or the lack thereof, of their proposed changes to air passenger duty on a variety of environmental concerns. The Committee will be aware that the projected impact of climate change poses severe risks, not just to the natural environment but to the prosperity of the British nation and the welfare of the people we represent in the House.

  Aviation has a significant and growing impact on climate change. Emissions from the sector rose by 1.2% in 2016. It currently represents about 7% of the UK’s total emissions yet, on current projections, that figure will reach 25% by 2050 as a result of increases in aviation demand and carbon reduction in other sectors. That is because aviation currently enjoys a uniquely generous target under our national framework for reducing emissions through to 2050—namely, it is not expected to make any contribution in our carbon budgets to those reductions, and is instead required to conform to a level of emissions in 2050 that are no higher than 2005 levels, which is 37.5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide. That is known as the Committee on Climate Change planning assumption for aviation. That generous target is in recognition of the difficulty of decarbonising air travel through technology and operational improvement, and of the utility and social value of air travel for those who are lucky enough to use it.

  Department for Transport aviation forecasts show that UK aviation emissions are currently on course to exceed even that generous limit, thus potentially jeopardising our ability to meet our overall climate change targets in the form of the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. The Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly called on the Government to develop a robust domestic mitigation policy framework for international aviation emissions for flights taking off from UK airports. Most recently, its 2017 and 2018 progress reports in Parliament highlighted the need for a new strategy and new policies to ensure UK aviation emissions are at about 2005 levels in 2050. In its 2018 assessment of the Government’s clean growth strategy, it warned that they are falling far short of the necessary action. It noted that no progress has been made on this requirement.

  The Committee on Climate Change is currently working to update its advice to the Government on mitigating aviation emissions. It is due to report on that in the spring—we await that with interest. One aspect of its guidance that is unlikely to change and is highly salient to the clause is the recognition that the UK’s participation in international mitigation programmes for aviation emissions, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s CORSIA—carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation—agreement to offset growth from 2020 and the EU’s emissions trading scheme will simply not be sufficient to keep UK aviation emissions within safe limits, as defined by the Committee on Climate Change.

  Likewise, even if some fairly heroic assumptions are made about technology, operational improvements and the uptake of genuinely sustainable biofuels, the projected growth in demand for air travel is expected to outstrip these efficiency gains, causing emissions to rise above the safe limit. In 2009, the Committee on Climate Change advised the Government that:

  The statutory advice to Government by the committee—renowned, by the way, as among the best climate change advisers in the world—is therefore that the growth in demand for UK air travel must be limited if our climate change targets are to be met. That is clear. However, no Government, least of all this one, has yet proposed any such policies. On the contrary, this Government have acted to remove constraints to growth in UK air traffic, such as by approving a third runway at Heathrow Airport without any corresponding measures to meet climate change commitments.

  That is why we seek through amendment 120 to compel the Government to review air passenger duty, its effect on the demand for air travel and the consequent effect on greenhouse gas emissions. That is not to say that APD is the only lever that the Government have, but it is incumbent on them to make it clear how they will achieve the climate objectives agreed by consensus of the House. Perhaps the Minister will answer some questions—I am sure the Committee on Climate Change will be interested in hearing the answers.

  What impact do APD rates have on demand today? How high would APD rates need to be, or what other measures would have to be in place, to constrain growth in emissions to within the safe limits advised by the Committee on Climate Change? Was that even a consideration of the Government when developing the Bill? Assuming that the Minister agrees it is indeed the Government’s goal, he might say that APD is not the best or most equitable route to achieve that goal, but we need to be clear that there is another route. The answers we hope to receive will help us all as legislators to decide whether APD and the suggested rate changes are indeed an effective mechanism to achieve the Government’s stated policy, or whether alternative measures would be more economically efficient and fiscally progressive.

  We understand that limiting growth in demand for air travel is politically fraught, and that important social justice dimensions must be considered when designing any policies to achieve that aim. The issue, however, cannot be ducked forever. The Government have been, and continue to be, remiss in their duties by failing to make any assessment of the potential for different fiscal measures or other policy approaches to constrain UK aviation emissions in line with Committee on Climate Change guidance.

  Modal shift from air to rail is an important feature of nearly all decarbonisation scenarios intended to deliver zero net emissions by the middle of the century, as per the UK commitment under the Paris agreement. At the moment, however, it is much cheaper to travel from London to Edinburgh by plane than by train. That is in part a product of the chronic failure of Britain’s ill-advised experiment with the privatisation of our railways, but there is an argument that it is also due to tax advantages enjoyed by aviation over other modes of transport, which brings us back to the clause.

  That anomaly is the subject of intense debate in France, where motorists are rightly pointing out the gross disparity between the high rates of duty in the form of a carbon tax levied on petrol and diesel at the pump, and the total absence of taxation on aviation fuel. Former French environment Minister, Nicolas Hulot, last week joined calls for kerosene to be taxed. Serving members of the French Government say that they are now speaking with the European Commission.

  [Source]

  The Opposition fully accept that, ultimately, APD may not be the right instrument to bring aviation growth into line with the planning assumption of the Committee on Climate Change. However, without the reviews we are calling for in amendments 120 and 121, it will be all but impossible to know whether it can play a role, or whether there are better alternatives. There have, for instance, been proposals for a per-plane tax, which would more closely link taxation to carbon emissions, and be a better incentive for more efficient use of passenger capacity in planes. Alternatively, there could be a frequent flyer levy designed to protect access to a reasonable amount of flying for low-income households, while targeting the most frequent flyers with an incrementally rising tax, thus addressing the elasticity of demand for air travel in relation to low prices or high income—or the fact that the key determinant of the propensity to fly is income, not ticket price.

  I take no view of those options today, because we simply need to understand more about how they would work; but that is precisely why we need the Government to undertake formal assessments that allow us to compare the impact of potential options on the factors set out in the amendment. Small changes in price have little impact on demand for flights, so increasing the cost of flights to a level that exerts significant downward pressure on demand is difficult to do fairly via the taxes that the clause deals with, and could mean pricing the poor out of the skies when the richest air travellers cause most of the environmental damage. In any event, without the Government carrying out the necessary assessments, which our amendments would require, we cannot know what APD rates are required to meet the planning assumption of the Committee on Climate Change, or the relative efficacy of APD and alternative fiscal approaches, such as a per-plane tax or a frequent flyer levy, for achieving this policy goal.

  Let me end with a sobering fact. As the widely respected naturalist David Attenborough warns the world at COP 24 that the collapse of our civilisation is on the horizon, the two largest aircraft manufacturers in the world—Boeing and Airbus—have more than 13,000 new fossil fuel-powered planes on order. Given the long operational lifespan of passenger jets, most of those planes will still be in the air in 2050, as will many of the 23,000 already in use. Given what is at stake, can the Minister, hand on heart, genuinely say that the Government’s policies, future techno-fixes aside, are really up to the existential challenge that we all face?

  [Source]

  14:35

  I want to raise a couple of things before we vote on amendments 120 and 121. The Committee on Climate Change has clearly stated that we are heading towards a substantial breach of the generous headroom that has been provided for aviation in the UK. The Government are going to overshoot that, to use a pun. There is a pressing climate emergency on this planet. As we speak, millions of people—many of them in the world’s poorest countries—are already being affected by climate change. My dad is from Grenada, and he has retired there. People there, and in the West Indies generally, cannot get insurance as a result of the hurricanes that destroy vast swathes of the islands year in, year out, because of climate change. I feel as though we are hearing once again from the Government about business as usual, even though a climate emergency is taking place.

  I understand the APD. It is not designed as an environmental tax or a demand management tool; it is a revenue raiser. Given that we find ourselves heading towards a breach of the headroom that the Committee on Climate Change has provided, surely the Government should be looking at ways to control and push down demand for flights, so that we can begin to make a real impact on our commitments to tackling climate change. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether he plans to join our French counterparts in lobbying for tax reform on kerosene, as they will shortly talk about with the EU Commission? It seems to me that the aviation industry has enjoyed these 70-year-old tax perks and is now an established sector, but one that has yet to fully play its part in tackling climate change. This country can show leadership on that, starting with the Treasury.

  [Source]

  14:39

  I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to our amendments to clause 63, which relate to the climate change levy exemption for mineralogical and metallurgical processes. I hope that I do not have to say that too often—it is a bit of a tongue-twister—and that the Minister will answer some questions on the Government’s proposed measures.

  The clause may seem technical, but the overall issue could scarcely be more important, as I hope I illustrated earlier. As the Minister no doubt will outline, business do not have to pay the climate change levy on the energy they use for some specified purposes, including mineralogical and metallurgical processes. The clause amends the definition of mineralogical processes so the exemption for energy used in those processes will remain operable following the UK’s departure from the EU. In addition, it clarifies that a landlord can claim the exemption for both mineralogical and metallurgical processes on behalf of a tenant.

  Although it is estimated that the measure will have a minor impact on the Exchequer, we have a number of concerns. We appear to be lacking assessments of the market impact of the clause, its effect on our leaving the European Union and its consequences for the UK’s carbon budgets and other greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, as well as for tenanted businesses covered by it.

  Amendment 127 would require the Chancellor to publish annually a list of the businesses to which the exemption for mineralogical and metallurgical processes applies. As the Government are only too aware, there is nothing like keeping on top of matters to ensure that legislation has the desired outcome and markets respond appropriately to the necessary signals. Will the Minister support our amendment so we can all follow the unfolding impact of the climate change levy and its exemptions in this sub-sector?

  Given the stark realities of the latest scientific findings submitted to the conference of the parties under the UN framework convention on climate change, which is meeting this week in Poland, the Minister surely agrees that nothing is more important than continuously monitoring, with an eagle eye, the greenhouse gas emissions of every sector in the UK. Monitoring leads to measurement, which leads to management. We must carry out official assessments if we are most effectively to support British industry and companies to reduce their carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. That means embracing opportunities to modernise our industrial processes as we rapidly move along the path to a zero-carbon economy and help the world stay within the boundaries of the 1.5° warming target of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  Amendment 128 would require the Chancellor to carry out an impact assessment of the effects of the changes made by the clause on tenants, the revenues of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the UK’s national carbon budgets, and carbon and other greenhouse gas emission targets. The guidance notes to the clause state that its impact on the Exchequer is negligible, but will the Minister please explain how, unless it investigates, HMRC will know how many heavy industry or fossil fuel use tenants will be affected? Without a confident quantification, that assertion is meaningless, as I am sure he agrees.

  Moreover, by extending relief, the clause in effect encourages those tenants, alongside existing owners and plant operators, to continue emitting carbon and other greenhouse gases rather than switching to alternative generation methods with lower emissions. Will he please explain why the Government would want that, and what complementary measures they are taking to support businesses that want to convert to lower-emission modes of generation?

  [Source]

  (d) the UK’s ability to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets.

  This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out an impact assessment of the changes made by Clause 63 and their impact on tenants, HMRC revenues, the UK’s national carbon budgets, and carbon and other greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

  [Source]

  15:07

  Such a beneficial undertaking would help both businesses and households to reduce drastically their waste streams and so cut their work-related and living costs. It would also go a very long way to helping the UK to meet its energy and greenhouse gas emission targets on the way to becoming a zero-waste, zero-carbon economy. As well as securing existing jobs and helping to create many new ones in the reuse, repair and recycling sectors, adopting the amendments that we are calling for would undoubtedly help to protect urban, suburban and natural environments where illegal waste dumping continues.

  [Source]

  15:20

  Waste management is often the poor relation when it comes to policy making. It is not sexy, but it is critical. We have spoken about the environment and climate change today. Scientists say that it is entirely possible that we could save ourselves from climate change and its effects, only to destroy ourselves by breaching other planetary boundaries. Recycling and waste management are critical, if we are really to reap the benefits of improved recycling and technological processes that ensure we use resources as efficiently as possible. As we move through the 21st century, and population increases, that will become critical.

  [Source]

• 6 Dec 2018: Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)

  11:30

  The amendment would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the clause on carbon dioxide emissions and the UK’s climate change targets, and to publish that analysis. As the Minister might confirm, road transport accounts for 22% of total UK carbon dioxide emissions—a major contributor to climate change. The European Union has agreements with motor manufacturers that aim to reduce average CO 2 emissions from new cars. Colour-coded labels, similar to those used on washing machines and fridges, are now displayed in car showrooms, showing how much CO 2 new models emit per kilometre. However, as traffic levels are predicted to increase, road transport will continue to be a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

  Given that light vehicles and other vehicles covered by the clause contribute substantially to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, will the Minister explain why no such climate impact assessment has been carried out? How will the Government take a lead internationally in the fight to keep average atmospheric temperatures below 1.5° C in the absence of full monitoring and measurement of all greenhouse gas emissions from all sources? He will surely also need to apply “polluter pays” disincentives in the form of increased taxes, for example, including relevant changes to VED.

  Many journeys occur on relatively empty roads. Those journeys are overtaxed because the congestion cost imposed on other road users is minimal. Rural road users are overtaxed relative to those who regularly drive in towns during busy periods. The result is too much driving in towns relative to the amount of driving in less congested areas, and the build-up of noxious fumes and climate-changing pollution. Those adverse impacts are in addition to the disruption for all drivers, who are less able to move freely and go about their business or other driving activities efficiently and without wasting so much time stuck in their vehicles. Not only is that personally frustrating and a contributor to so-called road rage, but the impact on economic and social productivity should be minimised. Will the Minister therefore explain why there has been no assessment of the impact of the clause on road congestion and traffic levels, or publish any that has been carried out?

  [Source]

  11:39

  My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The point has not been lost on many people, including in my own city of Norwich, where some people are part of a court case against the Government on this issue and on others relating to climate change. It is something that many people are concerned about, especially given the impact on very young children, who are often lower to the ground and closer to the fumes. I welcome the point my hon. Friend has raised.

  [Source]

  Will the Minister confirm that none of the general VED revenue will be spent in London, because the Treasury plans to give it to Highways England to maintain strategically important roads outside London? Strategically important roads in London are maintained by Transport for London without any Government support or a share of VED income. Frankly, I suspect that any assessment made under our amendments would reveal that money is available from the proceeds of VED, which of course will rise under the new rates proposed in clause 57. I am also confident that any assessment under amendment 111 would show that reducing harmful emissions in London is vital to our national effort on climate change and air quality, let alone the fact that it would address the suffering of ordinary people in our most congested city.

  [Source]

  VED: taxis capable of zero emissions

  [Source]

  12:01

  I am pleased to be speaking—again—to our amendments relating to clause 58, on vehicle excise duty and taxis capable of zero emissions. The clause seems to rectify an obvious mistake made by the Treasury during the 2017 Budget, which saw electric vehicles fall into the luxury vehicle segment of the new VED regime for cars costing over £40,000.

  VED rates are based on carbon emissions, and zero-emissions vehicles below £40,000 have a zero standard rate and a first year rate. Standard rate on zero-emissions vehicles above £40,000 is currently £310 a year for the first five years. To include electric vehicles in that policy was clearly a major oversight by the Treasury in last year’s Budget. The correction, although somewhat late in the day, is none the less welcome and, indeed, essential if we are to seriously encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, specifically taxis.

  [Source]

  12:01

  That is particularly pertinent as local regulations are tightening around clean air and greenhouse gas emissions, as we have seen with the implementation of the ultra low emissions zone in London. Amendments 112 to 114 require the Government to undertake a review that we believe is essential to understand the consequences of the clause, which range over the impact that it is likely to have on the Exchequer, on the taxi and private car rental industry, and on CO 2 emissions and climate change targets. Amendments 112 and 113 focus on the economic impact of the clause, both on the Exchequer and on taxi and private car rental companies. Can the Minister provide an assessment of the revenue implications of the measure?

  Amendment 114 refers to carbonisation and improving air quality. It would seem, in that respect, that taxis are low-hanging fruit. They are used frequently, often in urban areas with poor air quality. Similarly, according to the Mayor of London, drivers stand to benefit from lower fuel costs—by around £2,800 a year—and from avoiding present and future congestion and air quality charges. We believe, however, that the Government have failed to put in place necessary fiscal incentives to encourage the transition to the electric vehicles needed to ensure a reduction in CO 2 emissions. Simply removing the excess tax for luxury vehicles, as the clause would do, does not go far enough to encourage the uptake of zero-emission vehicles.

  The primary driving forces behind the reluctance to take up electric vehicles are cost and an anxiety about range. The costs of electric vehicles are explained by high manufacturing costs, specifically of their batteries. The anxiety about range affects taxi drivers far more than private vehicle owners or private car hire companies, as they do not have access to the range in the ultra-low emissions vehicle segment of the market for mid-range to luxury. That is due to licensing conditions, as they need to fulfil accessibility requirements. In London, for example, that means that many drivers are mandated to buy a London-style hackney taxi in many districts. Will the Minister agree to assess the impact of clause 58 on CO 2 emissions and the UK’s climate change targets, and whether that policy goes far enough in encouraging the purchase of zero-emissions taxis?

  I have a few questions on the clause. At present, a grant of £7,500 is available for new zero-emissions taxis. We believe that the Government should be looking to increase available grants and encourage the transition to electric vehicles, specifically taxis, in areas outside Greater London. There are currently only a few limited pots of funding, not all of which are available for taxis, and they are largely skewed towards Greater London.

  Similarly, the Government have yet to invest a penny of the £400 million charging fund announced in the 2017 Budget, half of which should be public money, with the other half contributed by the private sector, as we have already heard. Will the Minister tell us whether the issue that the clause seeks to rectify will aid the Government in finally setting up the charging fund that they promised to deliver to encourage the use of zero-emissions vehicles? Will he give us a clear timetable of when that fund will be operational? Will he commit that he or another relevant Minister will come back to the House with more detail when it is due to launch?

  Available charging infrastructure is a requirement of accelerating the transition. Outside London and a few select places, availability is poor. Drivers face a postcode lottery that is a barrier to electric vehicle growth. For example, there are more chargers available in the Orkney Islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and Hull combined. Even if grants are available, drivers in some areas will be unable to perform their work using EVs, due to the unavailability of charging infrastructure. It could therefore be argued that even if the Government increased grants and ensured that availability, poverty of EV infrastructure would mean that a majority of taxis would not be in a position to benefit from the change suggested in clause 58. Will the Minister comment on that? What assessment has been undertaken of the availability and adequacy of the infrastructure, and what steps are being taken to ensure that it does not undermine the good intentions behind the clause? Although the current situation is a mistake, it should not have happened in the first place. The measure is important in seeking to undo the bias created by classing zero-emissions taxis as luxury vehicles, and in encouraging the uptake of zero-emissions vehicles.

  [Source]

  This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of this measure on CO 2 emissions and climate change targets.

  [Source]

  12:20

  Department for Transport statistics show that HGV traffic has grown on average by 2.3% per year since 2008, making it the second fastest growing type of traffic in that period. That has resulted in HGV traffic increasing, on motorways and rural A roads in particular, to an overall 17.1 billion vehicle miles. Inevitably, that has had an enormous impact on greenhouse gas emission and climate change targets, road congestion and traffic levels, road safety, and air quality—the key issues on which our amendments are based.

  [Source]

  12:23

  Amendment 116 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the clause on CO 2 emissions and climate change targets. As I have described, the use of HGVs has increased hugely in recent years. Inevitably, that has had an adverse effect on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Studies from the Government’s own 2017 freight carbon review proved that HGVs are also disproportionately responsible for pollution when compared with other road vehicles. In 2014, HGVs were estimated to account for about 17% of UK greenhouse gas emissions from road transport, and about 21% of road transport nitrogen oxide emissions, while making up only 5% of vehicle miles. Will the Minister confirm those figures?

  Clearly, if we are to stay in line with EU emissions targets, which have themselves been agreed at the necessary level to ensure that we meet our Paris climate agreement targets, CO 2 emissions from HGVs must drop by at least 15% by 2025, and be at least 30% lower by 2030. Will the Minister agree to conduct an analysis of just how far the changes in the clause go towards the country’s ability to meet our climate targets? Will he also consider addressing the generality of the need to meet those targets with either taxation of the sector, or other measures that the Government might put in place to meet our obligations and to safeguard our shared environment?

  [Source]

• 4 Dec 2018: Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fifth sitting)

  09:45

  I thank the Minister for his patience. As I understand it, having requested an analysis from the Minister responsible for carbon budgets on whether the Government were going to take into account the recent evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the 1.5° warming, the fourth and fifth carbon budgets do not currently do that. I have been told that there will be no assessment of the 1.5° warming until after 2030 when the fifth carbon budget concludes. Was the Minister aware of that and will he comment on the fact that that could have a severe impact on our ability to be able to achieve the targets?

  [Source]

  10:49

  The Opposition believe there are a number of fundamental flaws to the proposals. Transferable tax history is fiscally irresponsible. It expands the very tax breaks that put the Exchequer on the hook for exorbitant future decommissioning liabilities, which the Government have set aside no money to pay for. It creates perverse incentives, providing a windfall for companies exiting the North sea, and it fails to ensure a long-term commitment from incoming buyers on workers’ rights, capital investment and emissions reductions for the benefit of the UK. It also totally disregards the UK’s role in avoiding catastrophic climate change, and does nothing to address the urgent need for a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

  Rather than assessing purely commercial viability, we should also assess how much remaining oil and gas in the UK can be exploited within the confines of the Paris climate agreement. It would therefore be helpful to know if and how the Government intend to assess the compatibility of TTH with that agreement. Do the Government have a view on how much of the UK’s remaining 7.5 million barrels of discovered undeveloped oil and gas resources can be equitably developed if we are to play our part in meeting the Paris goals?

  Ultimately, this issue ties into the Government’s wider policy of maximum economic recovery, by which they have committed to extracting as much oil and gas as is commercially viable. Recent reforms, such as tax reduction and the decommissioning relief deed, as well as the proposal before us, are designed to make ageing marginal fields attractive to investment, even if that means reducing the per-barrel tax take or subsidising decommissioning costs to improve corporate returns. That approach is wholly inappropriate in a climate-constrained world, and it is entirely inconsistent with the Paris agreement, which requires not only a moratorium on new exploration, but the winding down of a substantial portion of current projects. In short, we need sustainable economic recovery, with Paris-compatible maximum-production targets, and a strategy to determine which combination of oil fields can most safely, efficiently and equitably exhaust the UK’s quota.

  [Source]

  11:06

  When the deliberations were taking place with the Government, was any consideration given to climate change, the Paris agreement and the sustainable level of oil extraction? Was the fact that we will need to leave a substantial amount of oil in the ground— 80% by some estimates—to ensure we play our part in tackling climate change and remaining within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets taken into account?

  [Source]

  We would like to put on the record that we are not giving up on North sea oil. Rather, we have an appreciation for the climate emergency that is taking place, and we ask for a reassessment of how we can sustainably recover those assets. That is all we are asking for.

  [Source]

• 6 Nov 2018: Support for Businesses and Entrepreneurs

  12:10

  In his Budget speech, the Chancellor failed to make one single mention of climate change, yet by scrapping enhanced capital allowances for small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have again cut vital support for energy efficiency and decarbonisation. Given the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate change report and given this Government’s support for fracking and their abysmal failure on tidal, onshore wind and solar, do the Conservatives realise that not only will they fail to meet their climate change targets, but they have breached their quota for hot air on this issue?

  [Source]

• 12 Sep 2017: Renewable Energy and Carbon Budget Targets

  12:18

  19. Pope Francis warned yesterday that history will judge adversely politicians who do not act on climate change, so when will the Government heed his words and publish their long overdue report and fifth carbon budget emissions reduction plan?

  [Source]

• 13 Mar 2017: Budget Resolutions

  21:40

  Last June, the British people did not vote to apparently reclaim their sovereignty, laws and rights from Brussels only to see the Government auction them off to the highest bidder, behind closed doors. We are talking about our NHS, our Climate Change Act, and our employee rights. Nor did the British people vote to divide the Union, yet the Government’s hard Brexit is the key reason Nicola Sturgeon has given for requesting a second referendum. The First Minister wants the people of Scotland to have a choice, just as the Government now have a choice: do they want hard Brexit or do they want to retain the Union?

  [Source]

• 23 Mar 2016: CCS Funding (Peterhead)

  6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Ministers of the Scottish Government on withdrawal of funding for the carbon capture and storage scheme at Peterhead.

  [Source]

  11:03

  The Government’s own advisers on energy and climate change have warned that the cost of meeting our climate change targets could double without Peterhead and CCS. Given that the Government are having a good run on U-turns when it comes to saving the Chancellor, perhaps they would also like to make a U-turn when it comes to saving the planet—something that people feel is far more worth while.

  [Source]

• 4 Feb 2016: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

  I can answer that. Ending the renewables obligation a year early has saved the average consumer 30p a year off their bill, yet we know that the Carbon Capture & Storage Association has concluded that CCS could save the average consumer £82 a year off their bill by 2030. It is a false economy. The Government are either going to be saying in a few years’ time, “We’re not going to meet our carbon targets,” or they will have to go for a more costly way of bringing carbon down and out of our economy. That is the reality. Ultimately, this is about taking a long-term view, not a short-term one.

  [Source]

• 3 Feb 2016: Fuel Poverty

  One of the most cost-effective ways of meeting our climate change commitments and tackling fuel poverty is to increase energy efficiency, which has been mentioned so many times today, but it is being fundamentally undermined. Any serious attempt to tackle fuel poverty will require serious action to improve our housing stock. Poor-quality housing and fuel poverty are almost inseparable. The figures speak for themselves: 73% of households in fuel poverty live in properties with the lowest energy ratings—E, F or G. Only 2% live in properties with the highest energy ratings—A, B or C. The Government’s goal of ensuring a minimum energy-efficiency rating of band C by 2030 is woefully inadequate.

  [Source]

  The Energy and Climate Change Committee is clear that the most cost-effective option for decarbonising our economy is set out in the carbon budgets. We have made it clear in the past few weeks that if we intend to decarbonise our economy, renewables will play a crucial part. Our problem with Government policy is that it is going backwards on renewables. Renewables will play a crucial part in ensuring that this country meets its climate change commitments and carbon budgets cost-effectively. We must have a balanced energy portfolio; the dash for gas and going all out for fracking is not the way forward. The Opposition are calling for a more balanced approach as the best way to achieve our commitments.

  Between 2010 and 2013, only 70,000 fuel-poor households upgraded, leaving 95% still to be improved. As the hon. Member for St Ives said, at that rate the Department will miss its own target by 100 years. The Energy and Climate Change Committee estimates that investment of £1.2 billion to £1.8 billion per annum is needed to attain the Government’s fuel poverty strategy for England. The cheapest third of our approach to tackling our climate change commitments is the energy that we never use. Energy saved through efficiency is the cheapest. We talk about energy security, but energy that we never use is the securest. Funding for energy efficiency for the fuel-poor has been cut in real terms by a fifth, and the installation of energy efficiency measures has been cut by a third. As Members are aware, two new Government incentive schemes were introduced in 2013: the green deal and the energy company obligation. Two years later, the green deal has been stopped, and support for ECO is yet to be set beyond 2017 and no new funding is due to be announced until 2018.

  [Source]

• 2 Feb 2016: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

  Throughout the debate on the Bill—in Committee, on Second Reading and in the other place—we have heard that Government decisions on energy policy, particularly with regard to renewables, have had a corrosive effect on investor confidence. It is appropriate to go through the list again, because it is quite despicable: the solar subsidy has been cut by 64%; the biomass subsidy has been cut; the biogas subsidy has been cut; the green deal has been scrapped; the renewables exemption from the climate change levy has been ended; and support for community renewable energy products has been slashed.

  [Source]

  I will come back to that point. Let us have a look at the renewable energy country attractiveness index, which saw a major reshuffling of the 10 most attractive countries for renewable energy potential and growth. One of the biggest losers was the United Kingdom, which dropped out of the top 10 for the first time since the information was published back in 20013. It was specifically because

  “a wave of policy announcements reducing or removing various forms of support for renewable energy projects has left investors and consumers baffled”.

  [Source]

  I will come back to that. I am informed that it relates to climate change commitments, not the renewables that this Government and the previous coalition Government have invested in, or as my list just demonstrated, have been cutting left, right and centre. But let me give you a counter-quote from Neil Woodford, head of Equity Income, one of the best performing funds. In December 2014, he said:

  [Source]

  I will push on. I have a few more of those chocolate sweets I might give away. If successful, the Government will be going back on their own legislation and closing the renewables obligation for onshore wind a year earlier on 1 April 2016, a date that will not be lost on any hon. Members here. If successful, the Government will have adversely singled out the most cost-effective, low-carbon technology available to us, at a time when the Secretary of State herself admits that the UK is on track to miss its legally blinding EU obligation on renewable energy by an estimated 50 TWh hours, a shortfall of almost 25%.

  [Source]

  A report last week from Bloomberg New Energy Finance research forecast that these measures will see the UK lose at least 1 GW of renewable energy generation, enough to power 660,000 homes over the next five years. The figures suggest that after 2020 the renewables infrastructure will collapse to almost nothing because of a lack of investment.

  “The Government’s decision to end prematurely financial support for onshore wind sends a chilling signal not just to the renewable energy industry, but to all investors right across the UK’s infrastructure sectors. It means this Government is quite prepared to pull the rug from under the feet of investors even when this country desperately needs to clean up the way we generate electricity at the lowest possible cost—which is onshore wind. People’s fuel bills will increase directly as a result of this Government’s actions. If Government was really serious about ending subsidy it should be working with industry to help us bring costs down, not slamming the door on the lowest cost option.”

  [Source]

  In 2013, jobs in renewable energy grew by 6% in the context of 1.2% growth in the wider economy. Public support for low-carbon technologies including onshore wind remains high even among Conservative voters. The sector is vibrant and dynamic, representing a huge opportunity for our future. What investors want to hear from the Government is a real long-term economic plan and stable policy regime. I am afraid that the amendments represent the polar opposite of that goal.

  [Source]

• 2 Feb 2016: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

  Having repeatedly listened to the Minister and her colleague, the Secretary of State, I am convinced that they both personally share the Opposition’s genuine desire to make a success of our Paris COP 21 commitments. We all understand the urgent necessity to reduce our carbon output in the most cost-effective way possible. Ultimately, we all want to stave off the worst effects of climate change in a way that bolsters rather than undermines our economy.

  To that end, I will break down our arguments in support of the clause into four key parts: first, how the clause will ensure investor confidence in renewables and the Government’s approach to them; secondly, why the over-complex accounting of our current carbon budgets risks our failing to meet our reduced emission commitments, both nationally and internationally; thirdly, how the clause will ensure lower costs for taxpayers, consumers and businesses as we strive to decarbonise; and fourthly, why the clause is necessary to live up to both our European and international commitments.

  So far, Ministers have cut the solar subsidy by 64%, costing up to 18,000 jobs. They have cut the biomass subsidy and the biogas subsidy. They have scrapped the green deal without replacing it with something more effective, and they have slashed investment in home insulation and reducing fuel poverty. They have imposed a carbon tax on renewables by scrapping their exemption from the climate change levy, which is akin to extending an alcohol tax to apple juice. They are about to try their best this week to block further onshore wind generation, even where projects enjoy popular local support. They have slashed support for community renewable energy projects, and they have announced the sell-off of the UK Green Investment Bank without protecting its special green status. They have handed out generous 15-year subsidy contracts to diesel generators, which are one of the most polluting energy sources available. They have failed to incentivise a single new gas-fired power station, and they have cancelled a £1 billion manifesto commitment to carbon capture and storage—going back on a decade of promises from the Prime Minister himself.

  [Source]

  By supporting the amendment, the Government would send the industry a clear signal about the direction of travel of our power sector, giving businesses clarity, transparency and long-term assurances as to what decarbonisation investment will be needed and by when. In other words, they would be providing certainty—something that is now in short supply. Part of that certainty will come from clear, unambiguous accounting of carbon budgets. This goes to the heart of the clause. It means that by 2028 the power sector in particular should be using cleaner technologies, not simply buying in credits from other parts of Europe. Opposition Members are not opposed to the EU ETS scheme in itself. If reformed, it still has the potential to be a key part of Europe’s strategy for reducing pollution levels, but permission to use ETS credits in the carbon budget accounting process indefinitely is wrong, because it distorts the clear market signals that business needs to invest in new cleaner power stations here in the UK.

  “If the UK is to continue to be at the forefront of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions following the historic agreement in Paris, we need carbon budgets which are clear, certain, and which drive emissions reductions in all sectors of our economy…This new clause, if implemented, would remedy these weaknesses and mean the Climate Change Act for the first time doing what it must do: set genuinely clear and certain emissions targets that are binding across the board.”

  [Source]

  However, let us put all that aside for just a second and deal simply with the cost of meeting our international commitments and getting value for taxpayers’ money—something that I am sure all Members here would agree is worthy of our attention. The Government’s advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, said that we should be a net seller of ETS credits if we are to pursue the lowest-cost option to go green and meet our climate targets. Therefore, there is a real risk that by putting off emission reductions to future years, as current accounting practices inevitably encourage, taxpayers and consumers would be at risk of higher costs.

  “the way the budgets work is that, essentially, we pay other people to decarbonise and then we import the certificates. That can be done for a while, and it makes economic sense to do so. In fact, for the first three carbon budgets, while the system has been bedding down, it probably made sense to use a traded system—the rules and the allocations from Europe were clearer”—

  “and we were all finding our way to see whether the EU ETS would deliver. The closer that we get to our 2050 target, the more that that approach starts to be a false economy. We find then that, potentially, we are repeatedly paying other countries to decarbonise and not investing in our own country.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 722.]

  The cheapest route to climate safety is to get investment flowing now into clean energy industries such as solar, CCS, nuclear and wind. Yet, as I have explained, the Government are pulling the rug from underneath the lowest-cost options, such as onshore wind and solar. Only last week, the Government were warned that the cost of achieving climate targets could double without CCS, yet they have pulled support away from that in the UK as well. Let me be clear: the amendment would not prevent the Government from taking measures to protect our important strategic manufacturing industries from higher costs, whether through exemptions or other devices. Instead, it would ensure that the UK stayed on the cheapest pathway to a clean energy future.

  Ultimately, though, the amendment is necessary to ensure that we live up to our European and international commitments. The proposed fifth carbon budget for the period in question is aligned with EU ambition—no more, no less. Nothing in the amendment would mean that we were going further than the rest of Europe, nor is it a decarbonisation target for the power sector of the type that the Conservatives ruled out in their manifesto. What we propose is new, but it is not a target. It is about clarity of carbon budget accounting. The amendment would complement European efforts in the same way as the Chancellor’s own carbon floor price and the UK’s contracts for difference. Those initiatives were taken with the stated intention of driving investment into cleaner energy sources here in the UK. The amendment would bolster those efforts without undermining the European ETS.

  In Paris, the UK signed up to achieving a carbon-neutral global economy. The amendment would ensure that we played our part in achieving that, rather than offloading our responsibilities through tricks on a spreadsheet. I therefore conclude by asking the Minister to see that in the absence of a clear strategy to build a low-carbon British economy, and given the roll-back of key policies on solar, wind and CCS, there is a need to send an unqualified signal to the investment community and the world at large—a clarion call that Britain remains committed to achieving the goals to which we signed up in the historic Paris agreement. The amendment would do that job, and I urge Committee members to support it.

  [Source]

  The Committee on Climate Change also said that it expects the ETS sector, which is exempt from the current carbon budget proposals, as we have been discussing, to use only ETS credits, not debits, by the fifth carbon budget. That is my understanding. If we are to achieve the most cost-effective route to decarbonising the economy, we have to make this change. Yes, what the Minister says is correct, but there are other components to what the Committee on Climate Change has said that imply to me that the clause would simply make the whole process clearer and more transparent. The Minister says that there is no evidence, but I do not think anyone present would disagree that markets like clear signals. They want to be able to see what is coming in future. They do not like surprises and want to know what the investment scenario is. By making that clear and having a clear accounting process, the market signals will be far clearer.

  [Source]

• 26 Jan 2016: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (First sitting)

  In light of the collapse of the oil price, the OGA is in some ways more like an insolvency practitioner that has come to extract the last bits of value from the UKCS and manage the process as effectively as possible, and that is the context of clause 8. It is clear that the OGA’s stewardship role is its critical function, with its regulatory role very much secondary to that. In fact, the OGA bears no resemblance at all to any other regulator, which is why we want to include carbon capture and storage as part of its principal objective. CCS is a crucial element of the long-term value that can be yielded from the UKCS.

  The UK has the opportunity to become a leading global player in the CCS sector. We have abundant offshore CO 2 storage capacity in depleted oil and gas fields, and that is in combination with enhanced oil recovery and storage in deep saline rock formations beneath the North sea and the eastern Irish sea. Experts estimate that geological formations beneath the UK section of the North sea can store almost 80 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is more than enough to meet the needs of UK CCS projects for the next century. That advantage is made even greater when coupled with the fact that many of the UK’s largest carbon emitters—power and industrial facilities—are already clustered together around major estuaries, such as at the Humber, Teesside and Merseyside, which are close to offshore storage capacity in the North sea and the eastern Irish sea. Many of those very energy-intensive industries have no long-term viability without CCS if the UK is to have a chance of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

  [Source]

  We support the clause because, instead of having a strategy whose primary goal is to maximise the quantity of petroleum profitably extracted from the North sea, we should have one that maximises the return on investment—investment in infrastructure, for example—in the North sea. If and when activity such as CCS can be carried on economically in the North sea, the OGA should be given the job of promoting that as well. The OGA’s powers to push the industry to collaborate are extensive and we applaud some of the points that the Minister made previously. However, it clearly makes sense for the OGA also to think about the wider uses and potential reuses of the infrastructure, information and skills that are there, which other industries could deploy on the UKCS later, and CCS is a clear example of that.

  The clause would, first, simply ensure that the OGA keeps its eye firmly on CCS and builds into that policy. Secondly, it is clear that some of the biggest players on the UKCS are still making profits and paying out dividends—Royal Dutch Shell and Total certainly are. Fluctuations in the price of oil are normal, and it is likely that the price will go back up at some point, although it is not wise to make predictions as to when.

  [Source]

• 24 Nov 2015: Fuel Poverty

  In the Department of Energy and Climate Change annual statistics report, the number of households in fuel poverty in England was estimated in 2013 at 2.35 million, or—in other words—one in 10 homes where there was a choice between heating or eating. And it is not set to improve any time soon. In fact, by DECC’s own measure, the next set of figures is expected to show an increase in fuel-poor households. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the abject failure to get to grips with the plight of those in private sector rented accommodation. Compared with other housing sectors, the private rented sector has the highest proportion, at 9.1%, of the most energy inefficient homes—those in bands F and G.

  [Source]

• 19 Nov 2015: Paris Climate Change Conference

  The National Academy of Sciences in the United States recently described climate change as a “threat multiplier”, particularly in the context of the middle east, where war, drought and hotter weather will mean a greater chance of increased pressure on water supplies, food and agriculture. That will have an impact on the potential for war and civil war in that area. My right hon. Friend raises an important point.

  [Source]

• 29 Oct 2015: Green Investment Bank

  My hon. Friend talked about sending the wrong signals. There is a growing global divestment movement, which is moving funds and investments away from high-carbon fuels and into low-carbon fuels. In my constituency, I have Aviva, one of the largest insurance companies in the world. It is very concerned about the effect of climate change on its business models, and one of its clear goals is to divest its funds from high-carbon investments. We have heard about the Green Investment Bank perhaps changing its shape and becoming, in effect, another privatised bank. The Environment Agency, which has a £2.9 billion pension fund, has recently been looking to invest £450 million in low-carbon energy, but it has now said that that will be very difficult without a Green Investment Bank. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

  [Source]

See all Parliamentary Speeches Mentioning Climate