• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Danny Kruger's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Danny Kruger

• 23 May 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  It is very good news that inflation is coming down, particularly because of global energy prices, but business energy costs remain high for many of our constituents. In particular, one agricultural business in my constituency is facing an extraordinary rise in the standing charges it has to pay: it has to pay £32,000 before it even starts to pay for electricity, and the electricity itself will cost only £12,000. The Government, commendably, are asking Ofgem to look at the impact of standing charges on household consumers, but will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to request that Ofgem also looks at the impact on businesses?

  Full debate: Business of the House

• 30 Mar 2024: Tweet

  All credit to Matthew Parris for making the honest case for assisted suicide: that old people should be killed to save society the cost of looking after them. Maybe their bodies could then be turned into green energy? A modest proposal https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7ac1f4c5-63b2-4df7-b504-74b1e30f0fc2?shareToken=3e8d37fa00d5adca1f67a7d83f70657b [Source]

• 22 Nov 2023: Tweet

  "climate emergency, pandemics, fundamentalist ideologies, population mobility and the technological revolution are quite indifferent to borders. The world is more than a spherical marketplace... and a map of 195 countries minding their own business behind picket fences." 2/7 [Source]

• 19 Oct 2022: Vote

  Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 23 May 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I will be brief, because I want to make a simple point in support of the new offence of locking on. I am conscious that the debate has in a sense become a sort of proxy for an argument about how seriously we take the threat of the climate crisis, and I do not want to go down that road. I acknowledge that people on the other side are very sincere in this, including Roger Hallam, who is the principal villain of this debate. I know Roger Hallam slightly—I have met and talked to him—and I respect his views. There are people who want to tear down our society and who are essentially revolutionary in their intent, but I do not think that he or the people who work with him are those people. He does have an absolute sense, however, that our civilisation is under threat unless we take radical action to change our economy, and he is entitled to that opinion. The question is how far it is appropriate to go in support of that cause.

  The question of climate change and the tactics that we are discussing may be new, but it is an old debate. As we have heard, this place has experienced enormous protests over the years and the streets outside have known crowds of tens of thousands—hundreds of thousands—of people protesting against the Government. The question is about the action that can be taken by those protesters. Historically in this country, we had a clear distinction between what was acceptable and what was not, which was a distinction between what was called moral force and physical force.

  Full debate: Public Order Bill

  I end with the observation that the protesters we are dealing with, even if they have honourable intent and they are entitled to their opinion—who knows, they might be right about the climate crisis—are not allowed to use our tradition of liberty against us. It is necessary to update the law to criminalise that form of protest.

  Full debate: Public Order Bill

• 16 May 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The threats are very real. We have seen in this century already how precarious our financial system is. We have seen very recently what a pandemic can do to global health and economic systems. We are witnessing now the appalling reality of war in Europe and the real threat of nuclear war. I think also of the threat of technological collapse triggered by accident or sabotage, and of the prospect, even if we do not fully believe the prophets of the apocalypse, of what climate change could do to the developing world, inducing extraordinary upheaval and the prospect of hundreds of millions of people on the move, heading for our safe and temperate continent. We face a series of very real threats to our country and to our civilisation.

  Full debate: Making Britain the Best Place to Grow Up and Grow Old

• 11 Jan 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  There is one option that I have not heard mentioned today, although according to news reports last year it was probably being considered then. I refer to the policy of what is called a carbon fee and dividend. The fundamental challenge that we face, given our net zero commitments, is to reduce carbon emissions without hurting low-income families and the economy more generally. One way of doing that is to ensure that as we tax carbon emissions—as we bear down on carbon using fiscal levers—the income that is generated for the Treasury is reallocated directly to families, and to low-income families in particular, in the form of a carbon dividend or climate income, as it is sometimes called. Other countries have been experimenting with this. I accept that it is quite a statist solution and one that might not come naturally to Conservative Members, but I think it is worth considering the option of enabling the income from carbon taxation to go directly to low-income families.

  Full debate: Household Energy Bills: VAT

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

  Subsidy Control Bill — Schedule 1 - The subsidy control principles - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 21 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @BorisJohnson: Future generations will judge us on our actions in the coming months. We must not fail them. @COP26 | #UNGA https://t.c… [Source]

• 07 Jun 2021: Vote

  Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill — New Clause 1 - Human Rights Abuses - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 28 May 2021: Tweet

  RT @griffitha: As ???????? #NetZero Business Champion, I’m thrilled to launch our campaign asking businesses to commit to reducing their emission… [Source]

• 26 May 2021: Vote

  Environment Bill — New Clause 24 - Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 20 Feb 2021: Tweet

  Great to host the Wiltshire Climate Summit yesterday - with @Minette_Batters @ClaireClimate @griffitha and a host of farmers environmentalists businesspeople students councillors residents - ahead of COP26. UK leads the world on decarbon but we need to speed up to hit net zero [Source]

• 13 Jan 2021: Vote

  Financial Services Bill — Schedule 2 - Prudential regulation of FCA investment firms - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 08 Dec 2020: Vote

  Delegated Legislation — Financial Assistance to Industry - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: Aye

• 16 Nov 2020: Vote

  Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] — Clause 124 - Climate change risk - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 12 Oct 2020: Vote

  Agriculture Bill — After Clause 42 - Contribution of agriculture and associated land use to climate change targets - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: Aye

• 29 Sep 2020: Vote

  United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — New Clause 6 - Economic development: climate and nature emergency impact statement - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 02 Jul 2020: Tweet

  V good to join 30 constituents to discuss climate change on Tuesday - quick write-up here - ⁦@TheCCoalition⁩ https://t.co/tlHgMAyHUA [Source]

• 13 Feb 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  It is about actions on climate change and so forth. How do we encourage more efficient production systems, soil management and extensive grazing systems? That is within the gift of the farmer or crofter. What is not in their gift is the precise outcome that we get from that. We might think that we will get the right outcome, but we do not 100% know. There are lots of forces at play in agricultural land management, and the risks need to be managed carefully. The key thing is to move away from area-based payments in the first place, with actions then delivering the outcomes and objectives that you want.

  Full debate: Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

  I can pass the papers on to you if you wish. There has been a meta-study done by the Food Climate Research Network that looked at those claims. It investigated 300 sources and found that in none of the cases that it looked at was carbon sequestration in the soil under pasture compensating for carbon losses. The highest level of compensation was 20% to 60% of the overall carbon losses; there is a net loss in every case. The extensive grazing systems also have a higher net loss and a higher carbon opportunity cost than even the intensive grain-fed systems.

  Full debate: Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

• 05 Feb 2020: Vote

  Transport - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 29 Jan 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  Claire is now focusing on the presidency of COP26, the UN climate conference that the UK is hosting in Glasgow in November. This vital role is crucial for the future of our country and the world. I wish her all the very best in this, and I thank her for her work locally and for her friendship to me.

  Full debate: Policing and Crime