Ed Miliband MP: Climate-Related Speeches In Parliament
Ed Miliband is the Labour MP for Doncaster North.
We have identified 30 Parliamentary Votes Related to Climate since 2010 in which Ed Miliband could have voted.
Ed Miliband is rated for votes supporting action on climate. (Rating Methodology)
- In favour of action on climate: 16
- Against: 0
- Did not vote: 14
Compare to other MPs:
Why don't you Contact Ed Miliband MP now and tell them how much climate means to you?
Ed Miliband's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate
We've found 164 Parliamentary debates in which Ed Miliband has spoken about climate-related matters.
Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.
-
1 Sep 2026: Topical Questions
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The reason I took up this role is that I want the World Bank to do more to make adaptation and resilience go further and faster and to make it simpler and more accessible. We know from events around the world how vulnerable countries on the frontline of climate breakdown are, and I undertake to him and to the House that I will make that a top priority.
[Source]
-
1 Sep 2026: Climate Change: National Security
14:52
Keeping the British people safe is the first duty of government. This summer we have seen the effects of the climate crisis in starker terms than ever. We are impacted here at home and by what happens overseas. Showing leadership on this will be a core priority for me as Foreign Secretary, and I will bring a group of Foreign Ministers together at the United Nations later this month to discuss how to respond.
[Source]
14:53
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Met Office said today that this was the hottest summer on record. That brings home to us that whatever one’s views on net zero and associated issues—I know there are various views on all sides of the House—this is one of the biggest national security threats that we face. I undertake to my hon. Friend and Members across the House that as Foreign Secretary I will treat this with the seriousness that it deserves.
[Source]
My hon. Friend—I used to say this at Energy Security and Net Zero questions—is a brilliant advocate on these issues, with huge expertise from before she came to the House. I assure her that, as part of the work that we are doing in alliance with my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary, we will be working with other countries on these questions. We have to tackle the problem of emissions and we have to help countries adapt—both are crucial.
[Source]
14:59
The Leader of the Opposition will have to take responsibility for her own candidates. I was once Leader of the Opposition—it is a hard job, as I proved. There is an interesting point here, which is that a debate has broken out in the pages of T he Daily Telegraph —an organ I obviously read a lot—on climate change, and people are saying, “Hang on a minute; how can the Conservative party, which cares about preservation of our way of life, ignore this issue?” I urge people across the House to take the issue seriously.
[Source]
-
7 Jul 2026: Large-scale Solar Farms
11:49
I agree with my hon. Friend. He puts it very well. Our renewables auctions have resulted in enough power to power the equivalent of 23 million homes. That is significantly cheaper than building new gas-fired power stations, which is what the shadow Secretary of State wants to do; I am old enough to remember when she was in favour of clean energy—but never mind. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), mentioned London Climate Action Week, and what is so striking is that countries around the world are drawing the same lesson: that we need to electrify and get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster.
[Source]
-
7 Jul 2026: Topical Questions
11:30
In the two years since July 2024, this Government have secured renewable power for the equivalent of 23 million homes, invested in the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century, started to deliver the biggest investment in warm homes in our country’s history, taken £150 off energy bills and shown global climate leadership. I am proud that we are delivering on our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, so that we get lower bills and good jobs, and protect future generations.
[Source]
The framework provided by having a clear sense of mission, through the Clean Power 2030 action plan and the Climate Change Act 2008, is crucial. That is why we have the £100 billion of private investment. We are going to carry on doing it.
[Source]
-
7 Jul 2026: Climate Change: Weather Events
00:00
The heatwave last month saw the maximum all-time June temperature record in the UK set at 37.7°C, 2° higher than at any time since records began. Without human-induced climate change, the World Weather Attribution group of scientists has found that this 2026 European heatwave would have been virtually impossible. The climate emergency is real, and it is here. As we face these facts, this Government will continue to follow the science, to protect current and future generations.
[Source]
00:00
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion before. This is a very, very important point: of course, we have to do more on adaptation, but the idea that we give up on tackling the climate crisis is grossly irresponsible. Why? Because the costs will become enormous and unmanageable. We have had this discussion at the Select Committee before. We have got to do both. He will see, as somebody who is concerned about our economy, that we simply cannot say, “We’re going to just let climate change run away to 3.5° or 4°,” as he was saying, which would have massive impacts on our population. We have to keep to the Paris agreement and adapt as well.
[Source]
00:00
Well, that is obviously a matter for discussion across Government, but the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I do agree with it. The May 2026 report of the Climate Change Committee is an incredibly important, landmark report. We know that adaptation has essentially been in the past a poor cousin when it comes to government, and it needs more priority; I absolutely agree with him about that. He is also right to talk about the emergency, because we often say, “This is hotter than it has ever been before,” but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, this is a cooler summer than we will have in the future—that is the reality that we face. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said on all these matters.
[Source]
-
2 Jun 2026: Setting the Seventh Carbon Budget
Today, I am laying before the House the draft carbon budget 7 order, which sets the seventh carbon budget, for the period from 2038 to 2042, at 535 MtCO2e (equivalent to a ~87% emissions reduction from 1990 levels). This budget represents the next interim target for the UK on the way to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The Government have agreed with the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee to set the budget at the level it has advised. This level has been chosen because it:
Aligns with the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C goal to avoid climate disaster for future generations.
This level provides a clear basis and early signal for the pathway and pace of action required to remain on track for net zero by 2050.
The impact assessment also shows that even under higher technology-cost assumptions, meeting net zero continues to represent value for money, with strong net benefits relative to alternative pathways. It concludes that the CCC’s recommendation for the seventh carbon budget is the preferred option, as the most credible and balanced option with the strongest overall case.
Energy security and lower bills : clean power and electrification will significantly reduce our exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets across the economy: by 2050, our economy’s overall dependency on fossil fuels will reduce from ~75% of our total primary energy today to ~15%. Electrification will also help consumers benefit from technologies that can cut their bills. Even before the Iran war, it was often cheaper to run a zero-emission vehicle than a petrol or diesel car, and with the right tariff, running a heat pump can be cheaper than a gas boiler.
Improved quality of life and health : from warmer homes to cleaner air, decarbonising the UK’s economy will reduce air pollution and ease long-term pressures on the NHS. Improving air quality alone could deliver £80 billon of health-related benefits between now and 2050, avoiding between 39,000 and 119,000 life years lost. This would result from improved air quality in 2050, against a no-net-zero baseline.
Tackling the climate crisis : the UK has already helped drive global efforts to tackle climate change, including by passing the world’s first Climate Change Act, which has been emulated by nearly 60 countries, and by being the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050. It has helped drive a global shift towards net zero targets, which now cover 80% of global GDP. The UK’s climate framework has provided a model that others have followed, and domestic ambition strengthens our credibility and influence as we work with other countries to drive global action.
The Government are committed to meeting our carbon budgets, in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. Existing carbon budget 6 delivery policies will drive substantial abatement into the carbon budget 7 period. The carbon budget growth and delivery plan, published just last October, sets out a cross-Government policy package to enable carbon budgets 4, 5 and 6 to be met up to 2037. These policies will continue to deliver the bulk of emissions savings needed for carbon budget 7. This provides a strong and credible starting point for carbon budget 7, reducing delivery risk and giving confidence that the transition can be delivered in an affordable and manageable way.
I welcome parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed level as an integral part of the democratic process for setting carbon budgets in accordance with the requirements of the Climate Change Act.
[Source]
-
2 Jun 2026: Topical Questions
Today we have set out our proposal for the seventh carbon budget, as new research from CBI Economics shows that over a million workers are now supported by the UK’s net zero economy. This comes after 2025 set a new record for solar generation, and we have already set a new record in 2026 for offshore wind generation. We are taking these steps because they are the right choice for energy security, and for investment in good jobs and growth, and because it is the right thing to do for future generations and to prevent climate breakdown.
[Source]
I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State is indulging in the worst sort of scaremongering to justify her anti-clean-energy agenda. It is incredibly sad what has happened to her. She used to believe in clean energy. Today, a report comes out from CBI Economics, showing 1 million jobs in net zero, and what does she do? She starts quibbling about the small print, and saying that the report does not represent the views of CBI, when the CBI chief economist is actually advocating for clean energy.
[Source]
12:24
Tony Blair has lots of interesting views. I am actually old enough to remember when Tony Blair was a great advocate of climate leadership in this country. Fundamentally, this Government and I believe that unless we get off the fossil-fuel rollercoaster—I think all Members have to confront this—we will never get the energy security and lower bills that all our constituents want.
[Source]
12:35
The right hon. Gentleman and I go back a long way, so I thought I would answer this one. It is important to look at the whole context of carbon emissions in projects, but if he shares our desire to reduce carbon emissions, renewable energy and nuclear energy are the right way forward.
[Source]
-
19 May 2026: Energy Security
12:29
I agree with that commentator—it was the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), the shadow Energy Secretary, in Hansard on 16 November 2023. I agree with her. The problem is that she no longer agrees with herself. Where the evidence says we need more renewables, not less, she opposes them. Where the evidence says we should electrify as much as we can, she says we should abandon support for people to get heat pumps. Where the evidence says electric vehicles can protect consumers, she opposes action for their take-up—not because the facts have changed, not because the evidence has changed, but because she has jumped on the anti-clean energy, anti-net zero bandwagon. I am very happy to give way to her, so that she can tell the House whether she agrees with herself.
[Source]
-
24 Mar 2026: Solar and Wind: Bills and Clean Energy
Finally, a new trial offering discounted power for households and businesses in constrained areas near wind turbines—expected predominantly in Scotland and the east of England—will begin this winter. Wind farms are currently paid to switch off their turbines when there is not enough capacity on the grid to transport wind generation to where demand is. This trial will instead allow companies to offer this “wasted wind” cheaply or for free to consumers of participating energy suppliers or flexibility service providers who live or operate their business in grid constrained areas when it is cheaper than turning off turbines. The trial will be funded by up to £20 million and delivered jointly by UK Research and Innovation and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It will invite energy suppliers and other flexibility service providers to put forward offers for consumers that deliver discounted power.
Relying on imported fossil fuels puts our energy security at risk. We are addressing that through our clean energy superpower mission, and this package of measures is one example. We are building a future energy system that is both secure and clean while also ensuring consumers will save money on their energy bills by bolstering cheap renewable energy.
[Source]
-
24 Mar 2026: Topical Questions
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and I am sure that many Members will empathise as our constituents face difficult times. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), tells me that the Competition and Markets Authority is considering all those issues. If Members encounter practices relating to heating and other things, they should bring them to the attention of my hon. Friend, because we want to work as speedily as possible with the CMA to stamp them out.
[Source]
-
5 Mar 2026: Energy Markets
12:52
This Government have taken the decision to keep existing fields open for their lifetime, including through transitional energy certificates in our North sea future plan, as called for and welcomed by industry. They have also decided not to issue new licences to explore new fields, which the science tells us is the right thing to do, because this Government will not ignore the biggest long- term threat multiplier to our security and stability that we face: the climate crisis.
[Source]
13:09
I will not speculate on my hon. Friend’s point about how long the conflict will last, but he is right to say that the longer the conflict goes on, the more impact there will be on bill payers and our economy. That is why it is in all our interests for this conflict to come to an end as soon as possible. On his other point, I undertake to keep the House and the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee informed.
[Source]
13:28
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—who has briefly left the Chamber—is also a Minister at the Department for Business and Trade and has a particular focus on how we can help small businesses to get better deals. Better regulation of the deals they get is one area where Ofgem will have a role in what was previously an un-regulated or under-regulated market. On the wider point about the impact of the crisis on small businesses, I reiterate to the hon. Lady, by way of reassurance, what I have said to other hon. Members. The Government are absolutely focused on the impact of the crisis on households and indeed businesses, and we will not hesitate to act.
[Source]
My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these issues, and he is absolutely right. As I said earlier, it is striking that so many countries now talk about this as an energy security issue. For the 80-plus countries that supported the road map for the transition away from fossil fuels at COP30, it was as much about energy security, about their own situation, about bills and about their fear of exposure as it was about the long-term threat that we face from the climate crisis, as crucial as that is.
[Source]
-
10 Feb 2026: Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Jobs
The hon. Gentleman is right about this. Let me put it this way: given the scale of the climate change challenge, only those who are dug in dogmatically can oppose new nuclear. Given the scale of the challenge we face, we need all the tools at our disposal. It provides good jobs and energy security, so it is only for dogmatic reasons that the SNP Government oppose it. There is one difference between him and me, and that is that he promised SMRs, but we are delivering them.
[Source]
-
10 Feb 2026: Topical Questions
My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these issues. As she knows, that is the great thing about the Climate Change Act 2008, which was passed with the support of all parties. David Cameron—my nemesis—was a great supporter of that plan. The Act gives us the milestones that my hon. Friend talks about. On top of that, we have our clean power action plan.
[Source]
-
10 Feb 2026: Local Power Plan
12:14
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a planning process for all projects. I would gently point out to him—not specifically on his project, because I want to make a more general point—that if we are going to get the benefits of cheap, clean power, we need to build the transmission infrastructure. The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis; it is the single biggest threat to biodiversity and nature. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the specific issue he talked about, as do his constituents, but I do believe it is right to build the transmission infrastructure we need in order to lower bills for people and tackle the climate crisis.
[Source]
-
21 Jan 2026: Warm Homes Plan
12:56
The hon. Gentleman talked about renters. I think that, basically, what I heard—and perhaps it should not surprise me—was that he is actually against the higher standards for renters. He would leave private renters languishing in cold, damp homes, which is what the Conservatives did during their 14 years in power. We are proud of the decision that we are making. Thanks to the brilliant work of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), we actually have a supportive quote from the landlords. Even the landlords want more action than the Conservative party when it comes to the renters! To amuse the House briefly, I will read out that quote. Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, said:
[Source]
Any cases should be brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey). I feel a deep sense of sympathy for the people who have been badly affected by ECO4 and its problems. It was brought to our attention when we came into office, and we are determined to have remediation for all the people affected. The fundamental principle must be that those who, through no fault of their own, were badly let down by the system deserve to have that made good.
[Source]
On my hon. Friend’s first point, we want to use local partnerships that are already in place. On ECO installers, that is the work that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West will be cracking on with. We did not want just to say that we will allocate the money and that it needs to go through the ECO installers. We want to make sure that happens and we will work urgently on that.
[Source]
13:30
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the fragility of consumer confidence. We have to support it. The point of the oversight group that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West will chair is to make sure that we do as much as we can to support good ECO suppliers.
[Source]
13:30
As an MP with park homes in my constituency, I am very sympathetic to the issues facing people who live in park homes. To give the hon. Lady a proper answer, I will take that away and pass it on to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West.
[Source]
-
14 Jan 2026: Offshore Wind
15:13
Let me close by saying that Britain faces a choice over the coming years. We can seize the opportunities of clean, home-grown energy to cut bills and create jobs, or we can double down on our exposure to fossil fuels. In calling for us to cancel this auction, our opponents made their choice: they are setting their face against cheaper, clean, home-grown power, against 7,000 jobs supported today and thousands more to come, against taking back control of our energy sovereignty, and against action on the climate crisis to protect our children and grandchildren. This Government have made our choice: we choose energy security, lower bills, good jobs and the climate. I commend this statement to the House.
[Source]
15:34
My hon. Friend is right—bandwagon-jumping is basically the Conservatives’ policy, and they have jumped on the anti-net zero bandwagon. She makes serious and important points about the future. Indeed, she is a brilliant champion for this industry and for her area, because there are huge opportunities for Grimsby as a result of this auction. She will know that RWE was particularly successful in the auction, and we look forward to working with her and RWE to ensure that we deliver for her constituents.
[Source]
15:55
My hon. Friend speaks so well on these issues and he is so right. This is about energy sovereignty and our security as a country. When the Conservatives were in government, at least under Boris Johnson, they seemed to understand that. That is why it is so regrettable. Of course, this is about the climate crisis, good jobs and lower bills, but it is also about security in an uncertain and dangerous world. The Opposition are, frankly, surrendering our security and what they are proposing is incredibly dangerous.
[Source]
15:57
It was worth waiting for. I will let the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) speculate on her own future and whether she is going to join another political party. In all seriousness, I do think it is sad. The truth is that we used to pride ourselves as a country on competing, between political parties, to succeed when it came to building our clean energy future. It is deeply regrettable. There are many sensible voices on the Conservative side who shake their heads when I talk to them about the direction their party has taken. Fundamentally, my hon. Friend is right: this is central to tackling the affordability crisis, central to tackling the climate crisis in our country, and central to giving us energy security.
[Source]
-
6 Jan 2026: Topical Questions
I wish the hon. Lady a happy new year, but I find that question a bit churlish. We have produced a world-leading plan for the North sea, which combines the just transition—the just and prosperous transition—with environmental leadership, while keeping to our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields. It is absolutely right that we have tiebacks to ensure that existing oil and gas fields are kept open for their lifetime. Obviously, the North Sea Transition Authority will consult on the details of how that will work, but it is absolutely the right thing to do for jobs and the environment.
[Source]
I congratulate Hackney council—Labour-led Hackney council—on the brilliant job it is doing on green energy. Unlike some who just talk about it, the council is actually delivering, and I congratulate it. I see Hackney as being at the forefront of our local power plan, which will be coming out in the coming months.
[Source]
-
6 Jan 2026: Gas-fired Power Stations
My hon. Friend asks an important question. In our 2030 clean power plan, we talk precisely about the importance of low-carbon dispatchable power as a way forward. I am really proud of what is happening with our carbon capture and storage plans and Net Zero Teesside. Additionally, it will be an important part of our forthcoming hydrogen strategy, as he says.
[Source]
11:52
I do not really understand what the question was about, but we are in favour of AI and we are working with our colleagues on AI. I have to say that I am glad the right hon. Lady rose to speak on this question, because she has been rumbled by the figures I produced; they came out when she was the Energy Secretary. She goes around saying how much more expensive renewable power is, but the figures that she produced show that renewable power is cheaper to build and operate than gas-fired power stations. She used to believe that, until she jumped on the latest passing bandwagon to suddenly be a net zero sceptic.
[Source]
-
1 Dec 2025: Budget Resolutions
17:24
What is the Conservatives’ policy? They want to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008 and abandon net zero by 2050, which was their legacy. As a result, they have been roundly condemned by British business. Energy UK says that abandoning that target will scare off investors. The Confederation of British Industry says that it is a “backwards step”, because the Climate Change Act is
“in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on…saying what rubbish net zero is.”
[Source]
-
25 Nov 2025: COP30
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the COP30 climate summit.
The climate crisis represents the greatest long-term threat we face as a world, but the transition also represents the greatest economic opportunity of our time. At home, we are driving for clean energy and climate action, because it is right for energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth for the British people, as well as for protecting future generations. We went to COP because, with the UK representing just 1% of annual global emissions, working with other countries to tackle the climate crisis is the only way to protect our home and way of life, and because there are huge investment and export opportunities for our country by accelerating the transition globally.
More than 190 countries participated in this COP to build on the progress made over more than three decades of global co-operation, which has seen us move from a world heading for 4°C or more of warming to one where national commitments put us on course for around 2.3° to 2.5°; from a world where no major economy had a net zero target to one where 80% of global GDP is covered, thanks in no small part to the leadership of the UK at COP26 in Glasgow; and from a world where a majority of energy investment was in fossil fuels to one where twice as much is invested in clean energy. The energy transition is happening, the world is moving and multilateralism is working. The forces around the world—including here in Britain—who want to deny that the climate crisis exists, or to delay the action we need to address it, are losing. But at the same time, we were conscious in Belém of the further progress that needs to be made. Our Brazilian hosts were determined to make this an “implementation COP”, and the negotiations served as a focal point for action. This was the first COP to be held in the Amazon, and therefore a significant focus was on protecting forests. The UK was proud to work with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and work on this was moved forward at COP.
The UK was also proud to work alongside the Brazilian presidency on the global climate action agenda, which is about building coalitions of Governments, businesses, cities and civil society groups to accelerate action on issues including reducing methane emissions, phasing out coal and driving investment in clean energy. Thousands of British businesses, as well as our researchers, universities, mayors and others, were involved. The agenda is part of the unstoppable transition that is happening in the real economy, including here in Britain, where our net zero sectors are growing three times faster than the economy as a whole, and where £52 billion of private investment has been announced in clean energy since July 2024.
Turning to the negotiations themselves, I want to put on record my thanks to the UK’s brilliant COP negotiating team, led by our chief negotiator Kate Hughes. I saw once again in Belém the huge admiration there is around the world for the talent, expertise and dedication of our civil service, as well as the recognition of British climate leadership, which has built up over many decades under Governments of different political parties—the foundation of our ability to stand up for Britain on the world stage.
However, we must do more to close the gap to 1.5°. Recognising the urgency of action, it was agreed in the final COP30 text that all countries had to play a part to keep 1.5° within reach, that this required us to meet net zero as a world by or around the middle of the century, and that all countries should be encouraged to raise their targets. There will now be a forward process into COP31 next year, so we remain focused on the urgency of this issue.
Secondly, ambition on reducing emissions goes hand in hand with finance. This is in our interests, because there is no route to global stability, growth and development without supporting developing countries to take the low-carbon path and to better protect their populations from the impacts of the climate crisis. At COP29 in Baku last year, countries agreed that we needed to mobilise at least $300 billion per year for developing countries by 2035, and to scale up towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP30 agreed to target a share of the global resources agreed last year towards a trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, to make sure that developing countries have the resilience they need.
Thirdly, we know that there is no solution to the climate crisis without action on the transition away from fossil fuels. The need for this transition was agreed by all countries at COP28 in Dubai, including by the UK under the last Conservative Government. The Brazilian presidency put forward the idea of agreeing to a road map so that we could grapple with the difficult issues facing fossil fuel-producing countries, as well as the need for a just and fair transition.
At COP30, we saw the emergence of a broad coalition of 83 countries from the global north and global south, backed by more than 140 global businesses and civil society groups that endorsed the idea of a road map. This turned out to be the hardest sticking point in the talks, and it could not be agreed in the final text because some countries objected, yet as a result of the momentum built, the Brazilian presidency announced at the conclusion of the COP that it would launch such a road map on fossil fuels, as well as a road map to halt and reverse global deforestation. These coalitions of the willing are important when we cannot reach universal agreement, as we have seen with the Powering Past Coal Alliance, initiated by Britain and Canada, which is now supported by 65 national Governments.
The COP30 agreement also took important steps forward on building carbon markets, the just transition, technology transfer, and transparency on implementing commitments so that countries are properly held to account. Taken together, this package represents incremental but important progress and extends the arc of the progress we have seen over 30 years of COPs. That was particularly important this year, because the summit was a test of whether countries would continue to work together on the collective threat we face or whether, with the US stepping out of the Paris agreement, there would be a domino effect of others departing. That has not happened. At COP30, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their faith in the Paris agreement, their faith in working together to keep global warming to 1.5°, and their faith in multilateralism.
And it is good for Britain because it is the only way we can keep future generations safe from the threat of climate breakdown. I commend this statement to the House.
[Source]
Let us not forget that all of this would be put at risk by the Conservatives’ plan to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008. Do not take it from me; in the words of Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, that would be
[Source]
On the point about British leadership, the right hon. Lady could not be more wrong about the role of Britain on these things. What people are seeing is an ambitious Government who are leading on these issues, so there is actually some respect for what Britain is suggesting others should do. There is a record under both parties that we need to learn from here, and I say this as politely as I can to the Conservative party: ambition at home is what makes possible leadership abroad. We passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, which she now wants to rip up, and 60 countries followed us. We put net zero into law by 2050, and she wants to rip it up. I praise Theresa May for that, but is it not extraordinary that I can praise Theresa May, but the Conservative party cannot do so? She put net zero by 2050 into law, which the Conservatives want to rip up, and 80% of global GDP has followed us.
[Source]
14:29
I agreed with much—not all—of what the hon. Lady said. On her overall point about the fact that we have so many countries driving forward with action, she is absolutely right. On her point about the gap to achieving 1.5°C, she is also absolutely right. In a sense, part of what the future of these COPs will be about is each country driving others towards greater ambition, because we know we need greater ambition. It is also important to look at where the world has come from. The multilateral process has all kinds of maddening aspects to it, but it has definitely made progress. On the point about business, she is absolutely right and that is really striking. The fact of the agreement and the fact of this staying on track is an important signal to business, just as the Climate Change Act 2008 is an important signal to business here at home.
[Source]
14:29
I welcome the fact—I should have done so earlier—that my hon. Friend and other Members from all parties were at COP30. British Government representation is important, but so is British parliamentary representation and the more cross-party it is, as far as I am concerned, the better. My hon. Friend’s point about the NDCs is important. Our NDC, our 81% reduction, is based on the carbon budget passed by Boris Johnson in the run-up to COP26. We have taken that target, in good cross-party tradition, and put it forward as part of the UN framework. On clean power by 2030, we are driving ahead with our plans on clean energy, with more than £50 billion-worth of investment in clean energy pledged. All of that is a crucial contribution. Britain’s leadership on these issues is recognised and gives us more power in these discussions and negotiations.
[Source]
14:41
We are making big investments in farming and agriculture. In answering the hon. Lady’s question, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who are both with me on the Front Bench. They were part of the negotiations and discussions, including on agriculture and the question of methane. The UK produced its methane action plan in the run-up to COP; methane reduction is an area where we can make quick progress that can have real benefit in bridging the gap to 1.5°C. There were definitely extensive discussions on that; the world made progress on methane and it is something that we will keep working on in the months ahead.
[Source]
My hon. Friend reminds me how old I am, for which I am grateful! At various points in the middle of the night, Friday into Saturday, I could not help feeling a slight sense of Copenhagen post-traumatic stress disorder as I thought we were heading for no agreement. One of the things I consoled myself with was that the world is actually much further forward than it was when the Copenhagen summit foundered. On my hon. Friend’s important points about international finance and nature finance, despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we have maintained funding of £11.6 billion over five years in the ICF. We will be making new announcements in the coming months, but the points that she makes about protecting nature and tackling the climate crisis going together are very well taken.
[Source]
I definitely disagree with the last part of the right hon. Lady’s question, because net zero is actually the greatest economic opportunity that we have, which is why we are going to create 400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. On the first part of her question, which is really important, let me answer her directly: I would like China to go further, but for the first time it has announced an absolute reduction in its emissions. It is really important to understand that. I think it could go further, but this is a very significant moment. When I was at COP 15 years ago, the notion that China would have had an absolute emissions target—never mind that it would be cutting its emissions—was frankly fanciful.
[Source]
I agree 100%. For all that the Opposition say, according to the Confederation of British Industry the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy as a whole. There is a reason why China, India and all those other countries are driving into clean energy: they see it as a massive economic opportunity. The Opposition would say, “Let’s just rip up that economic opportunity.” Frankly, that would be a betrayal of not just young people, who will look at them and think, “What about our future?” but people today who want those good jobs.
[Source]
14:49
First, I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, for the really outstanding job they do. I think the observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) on the Conservative party are right; I will not add to them because he put them well.
The transition away is the hardest part of the negotiations, as I said, and that is not surprising, because some countries are extremely reliant on fossil fuels and are very reluctant—I think, in retrospect, they are quite reluctant about what was agreed at COP28, which is part of the difficulties we have. I agree with my hon. Friend about continuing to push for this to be part of the negotiations, but I think we also have to accept, as I said in my statement, that part of what we did on coal—and, to be fair, what the previous Government did on coal—is work with others. We have to work as much as we can both inside and outside the formal negotiations with others to drive these issues forward. The lesson of COP history is that we keep pushing forward on these issues; it might be slightly three steps forward, two steps back, but we do make progress.
[Source]
First, I thank the hon. Lady for her advocacy on these issues now and over a very long period, which is widely recognised. On CCS and SAF, I think we will have to agree to disagree, based on all the evidence I have seen. For the real nerds present, among which I obviously count myself, I strongly recommend the IEA’s “World Energy Outlook”, which came out during the COP—I have slightly lost track of when—and which looks at how far we are from the net zero pathway. It actually shows that we have overachieved on renewables, but we need to go further on some other issues. All the experts I respect say that there is no route to decarbonisation without carbon sequestration technology in different forms. As well as that, CCS is a big jobs creator. CCS and SAF are an important part of the future, and technological development is part of what we need. We have existing technologies, such as solar, wind and batteries, and they can also help us. We have seen a driving down of the cost of those, and we need to do the same for these other technologies.
[Source]
15:02
I am not going to comment on planning decisions. I will, however, make the overall point that this Government had two manifesto commitments: to keep existing oil and gas fields in the North sea open for their lifetime, and not to issue new licences to explore new fields. Those were important commitments. They are how we will combine the just transition in the North sea, including for North sea communities, and ensure that we have environmental leadership. We are committed to both those things. I thank my hon. Friend for her wider advocacy on all these issues.
[Source]
15:05
My hon. Friend’s wider point is correct: this is hard. There are countries that are resistant to this change and think that previous agreements went too far. That is part of the dialogue being had at these COPs. I think we learn a lesson from what has happened on coal though. The progress the world has made on coal, including the UK, is partly reflected in the agreement at COP26, but it is also about the high-ambition coalitions that form together. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have to do both these things. We have to work in the context of the agreements—but, because they rely on unanimity, we cannot always get what we want—and then we have to work in these broader coalitions.
[Source]
My hon. Friend asks a good and important question about keeping climate change on the agenda all year round. This is partly about international negotiations, but it is as much about the work that we do at home. Whether announcing new SMRs in north Wales, showing the jobs that come from tackling the climate crisis or putting solar panels on the roofs of schools and hospitals, that is all part of the argument for how this is the route to the right thing not just for future generations but for today’s generations. On the fossil fuel road map, we will work with Brazil on that, and I assure her that it will not be the thing that she fears.
[Source]
I will be brief. My hon. Friend raises the issue of the banks. I encourage her to contribute to our consultation on transition plans for financial institutions and large companies, because that is an important part of making sure that the investments being made are aligned with net zero and the wider argument on tackling the climate crisis. She makes an important point.
[Source]
On that question, I refer to the answer I gave a few minutes ago. My hon. Friend made a really important wider point. All hon. Members should ask this: when people look back in 10 or 20 years, will they say, “Why were they going on about that climate change business? That all turned out to be a passing fad.” I do not think so. Or will they say, “They were the generation who had the opportunity to act—why weren’t they doing more?” I think the latter is much more likely than the former.
[Source]
I just do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—he and I have been having this disagreement for 20 years. I will concentrate on his first question. The truth is—I say this to him in all honesty—if we disengage from the world, it will not serve Britain’s interests; it will harm our interests. When we think about all the problems that the world faces, including but not limited to the climate crisis, multilateralism and working with others is the only solution. The idea that we should not engage in COP because it involves travel seems very mistaken.
[Source]
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I will concentrate on the first bit of her question. This is very much about the just transition. Seventy thousand jobs were lost in the North sea under the last Government and they did not put in place the alternatives. That is why our investments in carbon capture and storage, offshore wind, electricity networks and all those things are crucial to provide the jobs of the future, as well as having North sea oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. We need to do both those things, and that is what the Government are determined to do.
[Source]
-
4 Nov 2025: UK COP30 Priorities
Britain is going to COP30 to fight for our national interest and protect our way of life by working with other countries.
In the UK, we have put clean energy at the heart of our Government’s agenda, because it is the route to energy security, lower bills and good jobs for our country today. At COP30, we will be working with others to drive global action on the climate and nature crises to protect our home for future generations.
We are making progress as a world—and British leadership has made a difference. Before the Paris agreement, the world was on track for 4°C of warming. Now 2030 national commitments put us on course for 2.6°C, and 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero commitments. Globally, twice as much is invested in clean energy as fossil fuels. More is invested in solar each year than in all other power sources combined, and renewables have overtaken coal as the largest global electricity source.
We must go further and faster, but we must not overlook the progress made, or the role of British leadership in making it happen. From the world-leading Climate Change Act in 2008 to the success of COP26 in Glasgow to being the first major economy to legislate for net zero, Britain has helped change the course of global action. This leadership is more important than ever, because the world remains on a dangerous course, and we need to accelerate action. At COP30, Britain will be working with the Brazilian presidency and others to push for progress in five key areas:
The UK has led the way with an ambitious 2035 nationally determined contribution that is economy-wide, covers all greenhouses gases and is 1.5°C-aligned. It was announced by the Prime Minister at COP29 last year. We will continue to build on this to encourage others to act. We will call for COP30 to respond to the 2035 NDCs brought forward so far, and say how we will close the gap to keep 1.5°C within reach. To accelerate implementation, we will work with Brazil and others on reform of the global climate action agenda.
As countries gather for a COP in the Amazon, the UK will continue championing the commitment to halting and reversing forest loss by 2030, including through our role as co-chair of the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership. We will support Brazil and other forest nations in scaling investment in forest-positive economies, including through high-integrity carbon markets. That will help Brazil to develop the tropical forest forever facility and support indigenous peoples and local communities.
We will push for COP30 to finalise a robust and practical set of global indicators for measuring global progress on adaptation through the global goal on adaptation, and to accelerate the development and implementation of national adaptation plans.
Building on the Baku to Belém road map, we will work with others to chart a pathway towards the at least $1.3 trillion by 2035 called for at COP29. We will continue to push for reform of the financial system. We will harness the UK’s position as the green finance capital of the world to unlock investment in clean energy, nature and resilience.
We will continue to deploy our own international climate finance initiative to accelerate the transition and support others, and we will meet our commitment to provide £11.6 billion by April 2026 and to triple our spending on adaptation by 2025 from 2019 levels.
COP30 will be judged on whether the world can work together on the greatest long-term challenge we face. I will join the Prime Minister and the Prince of Wales at the world leaders summit in Belém, and lead the UK’s delegation during the negotiations, supported by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). We will provide an update to the House once negotiations conclude.
[Source]
-
29 Oct 2025: Clean Energy and Climate Action Plans
We are also publishing the government response to the Climate Change Committee’s 2025 progress report in reducing emissions. This responds to the points that the CCC raised and sets out key Government achievements in the past year.
[Source]
-
14 Oct 2025: Tackling Climate Change: International Co-operation
11:30
In the best traditions of the UK, we see it as our duty to work with other countries to tackle the climate crisis and protect future generations. It was British leadership that saw the Climate Change Act 2008 emulated in 60 countries across the world, and it was the leadership of the UK at COP26 that now sees 80% of global GDP covered by net zero. We will maintain that tradition of leadership into COP30 in Brazil and beyond.
[Source]
Part of what we are doing is devolving more of the funding around warm homes, for example, so that local authorities can play a leading role. I congratulate local authorities on the interest that they are taking in this. The hon. Lady raises the wider picture of COP30, which is important—this is a crucial moment. The UK has already shown leadership in the past 15 months, including by publishing our nationally determined contribution at COP29 last year.
[Source]
-
14 Oct 2025: Topical Questions
12:27
Dear, oh dear. I will be honest: I think it is sad what has happened to the right hon. Lady. When she was in government for a time, she was the great eco-champion. At COP26, she was telling people, “Follow Claire’s lead—be a great eco-champion.” Now, she has suddenly discovered that she is the anti-net zero warrior. All it does is show how desperate the Conservatives are, and the more desperate they become, the more irrelevant they become.
[Source]
12:29
I will give the answer that was also given by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), which is that the Prime Minister’s diary is above my pay grade. We will be playing a very active part at COP30. The wider point that the hon. Lady makes about tipping points and the recent report is important. Anyone who looks at that report will see where the science is taking us, and any political party in this House that sees that as a reason to then abandon the Climate Change Act 2008, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, is anti-science and anti-young people. It is a betrayal of the future.
[Source]
There is a two-decade disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and me on these issues. The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis. That is why this Government are tackling it.
[Source]
-
14 Oct 2025: Net Zero: Evidence-based Policy
11:30
This Government’s approach is founded on the bedrock of the best scientific evidence, which, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that net zero by 2050 is essential to limiting global warming to 1.5°. That is why we supported Baroness May’s decision to put net zero by 2050 into law; that was based on advice from the Climate Change Committee. That decision was right for the climate, for energy security, and for the jobs and growth that it can bring to our country.
[Source]
11:32
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the Climate Change Act 2008 is now an issue that divides this House. I think Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, put it very well recently when she said,
Ripping up the framework that has given investors confidence that the UK is serious about sustainable growth through a low-carbon future would damage our economy. Seeking to abolish the Climate Change Act is not just a betrayal of young people—it is anti-jobs and anti-investment.
[Source]
I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer I gave him last time. Action by the UK makes a difference here. Of course, we are 1% of global emissions, but our action means that other countries act. Where is the evidence for that? Well, it actually happened. When the Climate Change Act passed, 60 other countries passed their own versions of it. Net zero was signed into law in this country, and now 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero. That is the difference the UK makes. I believe in Britain; the hon. Gentleman does not.
[Source]
11:33
The Chair of the Select Committee speaks very wisely on this matter. The net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole last year. This is the growth opportunity of the 21st century. Now, we could let China or India take that opportunity, but I say that we need that opportunity for Britain.
[Source]
11:38
No, and British business roundly condemned the Conservatives when they came out with that argument. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), sitting on the Front Bench, who said just in March last year—life comes at you fast, Mr Speaker—that Britain was the “poster child” for net zero. She was lauding everything associated with that, and now she wants to abolish the Act that made it possible.
[Source]
-
15 Jul 2025: Topical Questions
There is no monopoly on good ideas, and the hon. Lady raises the important issue of how we adapt as a country to the climate crisis. We know we have a lot more to do, and we will listen to all good ideas.
[Source]
The most significant thing about the OBR report is that it says there is an 8% threat to our GDP by 2070 in a 3°C world, and a 56% rise in the debt to GDP ratio if we do not act on climate change. That is the most important thing from that report, which I recommend all hon. Members read over the summer.
[Source]
-
14 Jul 2025: State of the Climate and Nature
Alongside this, the UK Government special representative for nature is today launching a report on “Unlocking benefits for people, nature and climate: Actions to jointly address climate change and biodiversity loss”. This report showcases how the Government are implementing joined-up solutions to meet their global commitments on climate change and tackling biodiversity loss.
The Government have restored the UK as an international leader on climate change and are reversing nature’s decline after years of neglect. In this year’s spending review, the Government secured the largest investment in clean power in a generation, as well as record levels of funding for nature restoration. This puts the UK on the path to clean power by 2030, bringing bills down in the long term, and creating thousands of good jobs for our country, while restoring our natural environment and tackling the climate crisis.
By taking steps like making homes more energy efficient and planting trees, we are mitigating the crises we face while also helping to cut bills and improve access to nature. At the same time, we are also committed to improving the resilience of our communities to adapt to the climate change that is already happening. We have announced the largest flooding programme in history, which commits a record £7.9 billion capital investment over 10 years to protect hundreds of thousands of homes, small business, and vital infrastructure. To help us improve further, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced that it will explore how stronger adaptation objectives can be set to improve preparedness for the impacts of climate change, which will be crucial to an ambitious and impactful fourth national adaptation programme due in 2028.
Consumption emissions and carbon leakage: We are ensuring that our UK decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions, through developing the UK’s carbon border adjustment mechanism to tackle the risk of carbon leakage, and encouraging a circular economy, both domestically and internationally, which will reduce waste and emissions. Today, we are also launching the production and consumption transformation centre, a new partnership between the Universities of Leeds, Lancaster and Sussex, co-funded by UK Research and Innovation and Government.
Public engagement and participation: We will continue to engage with the public through this statement and beyond. Our net zero public participation strategy will be published later in the year and will lay out our objectives for engaging the public.
Improved join-up between JNCC and CCC: Finally, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Climate Change Committee have committed to a data-sharing agreement to help tackle these intertwined crises. This partnership will bring to bear a wealth of expertise in an integrated way, helping Government shape the right solutions for climate and nature.
[Source]
-
14 Jul 2025: State of Climate and Nature
14:39
“This…is not a natural variation in our climate…human emissions of greenhouse gasses are warming the atmosphere and changing the weather we experience”.
We know that climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. Globally, we are losing species at a much faster rate than at any other time in human history. Here in Britain, a quarter of our mammals and nearly half of our bird species are currently at risk of extinction, with birds such as starlings, turtle doves and grey partridges under threat. The abundance of species in England has fallen by an estimated third since 1970, and Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.
As we know from recent events, rising temperatures place pressures on every aspect of our national life. We have seen this again over the past few days, with incidents of wildfires from Surrey to Scotland, disruption due to trains overheating, and hosepipe bans announced in Yorkshire, Kent and Sussex. The climate crisis is also a massive threat to our economy; the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, published last week, says that the damage caused by climate impacts in a near-3°C world is forecast to cut our GDP by 8% by the early 2070s. Based on current GDP, that will be roughly £200 billion.
To those who doubt whether Britain can have any impact on the pathway of global emissions, the lesson of history is that we can. Before the Paris climate agreement was negotiated 10 years ago, the world was on course for 4ºC of global warming. Now, national commitments imply 2.6ºC of global warming, or below 2ºC if countries meet their full climate targets. We remain way off track from where we need to be as a world, but we in this country have helped make a difference across parties.
In 2008, this House came together to pass the world’s first Climate Change Act. That was under a Labour Government, supported by Lord Cameron, the Conservative party and parties across the House. Now, thanks to the power of our example, nearly 60 countries have similar legislation. In 2019, under Baroness May, the UK became the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050, supported by the Labour party and parties across this House. Now, in part thanks to the actions at COP26 in Glasgow, including the leadership of Lord Sharma as COP president, some 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero commitments. In 2021, England became the first country to introduce a legal duty to halt species decline by 2030, led by Boris Johnson and supported by parties across the House. Now, 196 countries are signed up to the global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse nature loss.
That is why one of the Government’s five missions is to achieve clean power by 2030 and to accelerate to net zero across the economy. It is why at COP29 we announced a 1.5ºC-aligned target for 2035, based on legislation passed under the last Conservative Government. It is why we are driving forward on our commitment to protect 30% of our land and seas for nature and to halt species loss by the end of the decade. It is why we made the most significant investment in clean energy, climate and nature in the UK’s history at the spending review, which will drive jobs across the country.
Because the actions we need are not just about Government, we are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area, whether that is driving the expansion of local and community-owned clean energy projects through Great British Energy or supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action. At COP30 and beyond, we are determined once again to use the power of our example to work with others to uphold the objectives of the Paris agreement, including with ambitious climate targets, action to accelerate the clean energy revolution and the protection of nature and forests.
[Source]
16:04
I will be honest, Mr Speaker: I just feel incredibly sad when I listen to the hon. Gentleman—and not in a good way. The trouble is that we are now in a situation in which the shadow Secretary of State goes into hiding when there is a statement about the climate crisis, because it is just too embarrassing to try to articulate the Opposition’s position.
The central chasm at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s response is that he and his colleagues have taken the decision to abandon 20 years of bipartisanship on climate. Theresa May’s promise to deliver net zero by 2050 was one of the great strides forward, but he is now trashing that and saying it was a disaster. Let us be honest: it is grossly irresponsible. We are expected to believe that the Conservatives oppose net zero because they know, 25 years in advance of the target, that it cannot be achieved, but they cannot possibly know that. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee says exactly the opposite in its latest report. The hon. Gentleman says he is worried about costs, but all the evidence suggests that delaying action costs more, not less. The CCC says net zero will cut energy bills and the cost of motoring.
We do not even know whether the Conservatives want a net zero target at all, or no net zero target ever. The hon. Gentleman said something the other week—I read his interviews with care in my spare time—about reaching net zero by 2050 not being based on the science, but he is absolutely wrong. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says:
“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030…reaching net zero around 2050”.
The point is that net zero was a target that Theresa May adopted, driven by the science.
“Those of us who advocate accelerating our progress towards net zero emissions are labelled fanatics and zealots. Ironically, the name-calling often emanates from ideologues at the political extremes or from populists who offer only easy answers to complex questions.”
[Source]
16:09
The point that I will end on is this. I just urge the hon. Lady to think. If we are to fulfil our net zero ambitions—these are stretching targets—we have to build the infrastructure. I say to all Members that the easy thing is to say no, but the right thing to do is very often to say yes to the energy infrastructure we need.
[Source]
16:09
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and conviction on these subjects, and she is absolutely right about the role of nature. I add—and I will come on to her question in a second—that the biggest threat to nature that we face is the climate crisis. The figures I read out from scientific authorities show the scale of the threat that is already there to our countryside. As I said in my statement, the threat will only get worse. On the land use framework, we are currently consulting and will come up with a final document later on this year. She makes a crucial point about the need for co-ordination between the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan, which together mean that we use our land in a sensible way and that we build the energy infrastructure we need.
[Source]
16:15
The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Let me give him three examples from those five. India has a target of 500 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, and a target of reaching net zero by 2070. China has nearly half the world’s renewable capacity, is committing to peaking its emissions by 2030, and has a target to reach net zero by 2060, but of course I want it to do more. Brazil has set out an ambitious nationally determined contribution. I think I am right in saying that as of March 2025, fossil fuels accounted for less than 50% of electricity generation in the US. He is right to ask this question. Not every country is going at the same pace, and there are countries that are more sceptical, but there has been a decisive shift across the world on this matter; when I was Climate Change Secretary from 2008 to 2010, net zero was not even talked about. There has been a transformation in the extent to which countries are taking it seriously.
[Source]
16:19
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great expertise on these matters, partly because of his constituency. He is right about the threat to farmers’ livelihoods from the climate crisis, which I talked about in my statement, and the need for food security, which my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes incredibly seriously. Indeed, the land use framework is partly about making sure that we have the land we need for our food security.
[Source]
16:25
On that last bit, that is very much part of our mission to tackle net zero. The first part of the hon. Member’s question was very important. We hear what some folks say in the House, but we see what is happening all around us. It is not like we are gazing into a crystal ball, because some boffins have told us that something bad might happen in the future. This is happening now. If anyone had said 15 years ago that we would have wildfires in Surrey and in Scotland, people would have said, “You’re mad. There’s no way that’s going to happen. We’re not going to have wildfires in Britain.” The hon. Member spoke well about something very important. We need to look with our own eyes at what is happening.
[Source]
16:26
My hon. Friend speaks about an important subject. We are dealing with the grid zombies and the zombie queue. The reordering of the queue is designed to open it up to projects like those she talked about. The energy Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)—is having a series of roundtables with the Department for Transport on precisely that.
[Source]
16:27
All those details are set out in the Climate Change Committee report. The right hon. Member can look for herself. [ Interruption. ] They are set out in carbon budget 7. Actually, the cost of getting to net zero has been coming down. When I set the 80% target, the cost of getting there, according to the committee, was higher than the cost now of getting to net zero. I make the point gently that the costs of inaction are much greater than the costs of action.
[Source]
16:33
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and passion on these issues, and she is absolutely right. This is about what we do to engage with other countries. We had an environment dialogue with the Chinese Minister a couple of weeks ago in London. I engage with China, India and Brazil, all of which are absolutely key; Brazil is obviously the host of COP30. She is right to say that COP30 will be a crucial moment when we will show that we are continuing to take action, and that is what we are determined to do.
[Source]
16:34
The answer, which the hon. Member just does not want to accept, is this— [ Interruption. ] If he just listens, the answer is this: I believe in British leadership and in Britain’s ability to make a difference. The truth is, as I said in my statement, that when we passed the Climate Change Act 2008, 60 countries followed. When we legislated for net zero, many other countries followed. He talks Britain down; I believe in Britain.
[Source]
My hon. Friend is very kind. To be frank with him, when I met a group of young people earlier today, I felt a sense of responsibility, because no country is yet doing enough on these issues and we need to do more. They are fearful about the world that they will inherit and look to the Government to show leadership. The issue that he mentions is important, and we will ensure that we make it part of our agenda at COP30.
[Source]
16:55
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As the Prime Minister says, action on clean energy and net zero is “in the DNA” of this Government. I was in the last Labour Government, but now we have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who are more supportive of this agenda, and who have moved it from the margins to the mainstream more than anyone else before.
[Source]
-
10 Jul 2025: Electricity Market: Review
Effective planning of renewable energy infrastructure through the upcoming strategic spatial energy plan, to be consulted on and published next year;
[Source]
-
10 Jul 2025: Electricity Market Review
13:04
On the fairness test, under reformed national pricing, there would be one national wholesale price, as now. As I have said, under zonal pricing there would be different wholesale prices in different zones. Lower prices will tend to occur in zones with more renewable energy and a smaller population, and higher prices in those with less power and more people.
[Source]
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. The impact on Scotland is an important dimension here, because Scotland has really exciting plans to drive forward renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. It can be a massive job creator for the future, and it is something we are really focused on. One other issue with zonal pricing is that I fear it would have had quite an adverse effect on the Scottish green economy, which was a point powerfully made by lots of different stakeholders. I can definitely say to my hon. Friend that we are 100% committed. We think that Scotland has a rightful place as an energy capital and an energy powerhouse, and offshore wind is a crucial part of that.
[Source]
09:30
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and passion on these issues. On his first point, it is worth saying something about this, and I hope to say more on it in the next week or so. The impacts of climate change that we are seeing around the world are the new normal, I am afraid, but they are not normal in comparison with the past. We are seeing some horrifying scenes around the world, and the warming of the planet makes them much more likely to happen, so there is real urgency, and he is right to emphasise that. He is also absolutely right that Scotland will play a pivotal role for the UK in answering the questions on energy security and tackling the climate crisis. I believe the announcement today will help in that endeavour.
[Source]
09:30
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of grid connections. We inherited an absolutely broken system that was massively oversubscribed, with a zombie queue, lengthening delays, and nothing happening, basically. That is why we have ended the first come, first served system and are doing a much more intentional, planned system for the grid. That is good for connecting renewable energy, but the other crucial thing is that by working out which energy projects we need and which we do not, we free up the queue for industrial projects. That is the key, and that is the work that NESO is currently embarked upon. I hope that it will help businesses in his constituency and across the country to deal with the obvious and acknowledged frustration they have on grid connection.
[Source]
-
10 Jun 2025: Nuclear Power: Investment
12:38
“We need to use all available low-carbon sources… New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change, and it will be good for jobs too”. —[ Official Report , 9 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 31.]
That was true back then, and it is even more true today. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that followed showed how vulnerable we are as a country because of our dependence on fossil fuels, at the whim of markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The imperative of energy security and the demands of the climate crisis mean that we must shift as fast as possible to clean, home-grown power. The demand for that power, as we shift away from gas, is expected to at least double by 2050, so we need all the low-carbon sources possible to meet the demands we face.
The advice from experts, including the Climate Change Committee, is clear: we need new nuclear to meet our climate obligations. This Government support new nuclear because of our belief that the climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and our world, not in spite of it; because of the imperative of energy security; and because of the good, skilled jobs that nuclear provides. In Britain today, there are too few industries that offer the secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions that the British people desire and deserve. Time and again, I have heard from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities. For all these reasons, the Government are taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.
Taken together, the steps that I have announced today will kick off the biggest nuclear building programme that Britain has seen in half a century, doubling down on our nuclear strength to take the latest step forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for our country, this is what it is all about. For too long, our country has not made the crucial investments in energy or infrastructure that we need. The British people have paid the price for this short-sighted failure to invest—in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. This week’s announcements signal a decisive change in approach—to invest in the future and make the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate, our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, and the right choice of investment over decline. I commend this statement to the House.
[Source]
13:00
I thank the hon. Member for part of what he said, if not most of it. We have a fundamental disagreement. Solar and wind offer cheap power for our country—why would we possibly say no to that? The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis, and solar and wind alongside nuclear are the way to tackle it.
[Source]
The right hon. Gentleman asks perfectly legitimate questions. I am glad to say that decommissioning is in at the beginning of the financing model, as part of the overall costs. We will lay out total costs when the final investment decision is made. Similarly, on the regulated asset base costs—I know that he genuinely cares about the climate crisis—all the evidence we have shows that this is our lowest-cost alternative, compared with other low-carbon technologies, so it is a crucial part of the energy mix.
[Source]
-
10 Jun 2025: Topical Questions
Since the last Energy Security and Net Zero oral questions, the Government have confirmed that rooftop solar panels will be standard for all new build homes, delivered the first 11 solar on schools projects, scrapped the absurd 1-metre heat pump rule, secured Royal Assent for the Great British Energy Bill and, alongside Ofgem, delivered compensation for 40,000 victims of the prepayment meter scandal that happened under the last Government.
[Source]
-
10 Jun 2025: Rooftop Solar Power
11:47
My hon. Friend raises some important points. The first is on grid connections. With the grid reforms that we are doing, we are going to end this zombie queue where projects are taking up space when they are not going to connect or not going to connect in time. That will open up the future to projects such as hers. On the point about industrial estates, I can give her a sneak preview and tell her that this is part of the solar road map. She makes important points, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) has volunteered to meet her.
[Source]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having hit the jackpot with the NHS benefiting from what Great British Energy is doing. He makes such an important point here, which is that the net zero agenda is about lower bills. For example, it is about cutting energy bills for frontline services and putting the money back into those services. Who could possibly be against that?
[Source]
-
29 Apr 2025: Household Energy Efficiency
It sounds as though the hon. Lady is raising an individual case, and if she wants to draw it to our attention, she can do so. On the more general point, I believe that her local authority has received £6 million as part of the warm homes local grant, so it would be worth talking to it about this. Again—I am sure that I speak for the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), on this—where there are specific issues about how particular schemes are working, please do draw them to our attention and we will seek to act on them.
[Source]
-
29 Apr 2025: Topical Questions
The shadow Minister talks about the Tony Blair Institute report. I agree with a lot of what it says. It says that we should move ahead on carbon capture and storage, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on the role of artificial intelligence, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on nuclear, which the Government are doing. The shadow Minister said only three weeks ago, after his party dropped its net zero policy—this will surprise people, Mr Speaker—
[Source]
12:20
“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do.”
Those are not my words but his. Some people say that the Tory party has only one policy. Actually, it has two: it is against net zero and, through the shadow Minister, it is for net zero.
[Source]
12:34
My Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), and I regularly discuss this issue, which relates to one of the first duties of Government. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that not only is this a focus for Government, but we will look at what happened in Spain and Portugal to see if there are any lessons to be learned about our resilience.
[Source]
-
28 Apr 2025: Energy Security Summit
Political and industry leaders from around the world discussed the diverse energy security challenges faced by different countries, and how energy in all its forms is the basis of human and economic development. Achieving secure, affordable, and sustainable energy for all remains a fundamental priority in the years to come. Many stressed that multilateral co-operation between countries, as well as with international organisations, industry and civil society, is key to tackling shared challenges and ensuring a secure energy system.
[Source]
-
18 Mar 2025: Carbon Capture and Storage
12:04
My hon. Friend is entirely right about this. We have learned over the last decade and more that this is the biggest jobs opportunity of the 21st century. Nowhere is that more true than in the investments we are making in carbon capture, usage and storage, and I am confident that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit. A couple of weeks ago, the Confederation of British Industry produced an important report that showed that last year, the net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole. The House should let that sink in, because it tells us that if we turn our back on the net zero economy, we turn our back on business, jobs and investment.
[Source]
12:08
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. The situation that we inherited from the last Government meant that we had to consider matters such as security of supply and how we could secure the best deal for bill payers. That is what we did, and that is why we made the statement that we made on Drax. On longer term, however, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We need to move away from unabated biomass and consider all the possibilities to enable us to move towards net zero, and that is what this Government are doing.
[Source]
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can tell him that the Minister for Industry held a roundtable with a whole range of industry voices on this precise topic last week. He is right about this issue. There is scepticism about CCS in some parts of academia and elsewhere. All the evidence that I have seen from the Climate Change Committee, the IPCC and others, including the International Energy Agency, is that CCS technology has a crucial role to play on something like 20% of emissions. He is also right to say that carbon removal is the next stage of that journey, and it is something that my Department is heavily engaged in.
[Source]
-
18 Mar 2025: Clean Power by 2030
11:54
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), made a statement on precisely that issue. On the impact on bills, he will be delighted to know that under the new arrangements that this Government agreed, there has been an absolute transformation in the scale of subsidy to Drax; it will be halved. There is also a windfall tax when its profits go above a certain level, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, and there are much higher standards of sustainability. He is right that we should take these issues seriously.
[Source]
11:55
My hon. Friend should not be so shy and retiring. He makes a really important point. I listened to the interim shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on the radio this morning. He made net zero 2050 sound like a target dreamed up by me, but it is not. It was Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who legislated for net zero by 2050. The hon. Member was her Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time—he was supposed to be the man implementing it. She set the target because it was the right thing to do, so that we can have cleaner home-grown energy, get the jobs, and protect future generations.
[Source]
-
18 Mar 2025: Topical Questions
12:20
Britain produces 1% of global climate emissions. China is the world’s largest emitter, yet no UK Energy Secretary has visited it in eight years to make the case for it to do more. That is why I have been in Beijing making the case for climate action. Engagement, not negligence, is what fighting for Britain looks like. On climate, as on so much else, this Government believe that Britain can only protect our national interests by engaging on the international stage.
[Source]
12:20
I deeply regret the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going. The Climate Change Committee does incredibly important work. We will look at CB7, but the biggest cost we face as a country is if we do not act on the climate crisis. That is what would leave hundreds of billions of pounds of costs to future generations.
[Source]
12:24
It is the Tory party that has an energy surrender policy: surrendering us to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The Tories would keep us locked in to fossil fuels, threaten billions of pounds of investment in net zero and leave our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy. That is the Conservative party in 2025: anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-future generations.
[Source]
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that. The Opposition are off to the “Wacky Races” when it comes to net zero. We in the Labour party know the truth: net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century and, under this Government, we will seize it.
[Source]
12:34
I speak as an old lag in these things: we have never had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor so enthusiastic and committed to the net zero agenda and what it can do economically for our country. The right hon. Gentleman should take heart from that.
[Source]
-
18 Mar 2025: Renewable Energy: Workers’ Rights
For this Government, good pay and conditions for workers and the role of trade unions must be at the heart of the renewable energy sector, because that is the only route to a fair transition. Since we came to office, EDF Renewables has announced recognition agreements with four major trade unions. We applaud it for its decision, and we want others to follow suit. Through the Office for Clean Energy Jobs, we are also working with industry and trade unions to support fair pay, terms and conditions in the sector.
[Source]
-
10 Feb 2025: Energy Performance of Privately Rented Homes: England and Wales
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is today publishing a consultation on reforms to the minimum energy efficiency standards that are applied to private rented sector homes under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. Improving the energy efficiency of private rented homes is essential to cutting bills, tackling fuel poverty, reducing carbon emissions and increasing our energy independence.
[Source]
-
4 Feb 2025: Clean Power by 2030
11:54
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on his advocacy. Members across the House have a decision to make here. As the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), said earlier, we are exposed to fossil fuels and we see what is happening in global markets with prices going up. If we want to change that and have clean home-grown power that we can control, we have to build the infrastructure we need. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on supporting it and on supporting our planning reforms, and I urge Members across this House to do the same.
[Source]
-
4 Feb 2025: Topical Questions
12:24
I know that the hon. Lady has had long discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), on these issues. We are absolutely determined that, as part of Great British Energy, community energy will be massively expanded. That was our manifesto commitment, and that is what we will deliver. Hon. Members around the Chamber have asked how their community can benefit, and community energy will be an essential part.
[Source]
12:30
Let us be frank: the big prize that has eluded past Governments for a long time is a proper plan to upgrade all types of buildings, not just residential properties. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), and I are working on that closely with colleagues from across Government. It is part of a bigger version of the warm homes plan, which is also about buildings. We will definitely take away the experience that the hon. Lady raises.
[Source]
-
30 Jan 2025: UNFCCC: UK's 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution Target
Under the Paris agreement, all parties are required to communicate their nationally determined contributions to the United Nations framework convention on climate change every 5 years, nine to 12 months prior to the relevant COP. NDCs covering the period 2031 to 2035 are due by 10 February 2025, ahead of COP30 in Brazil.
The Prime Minister announced on 12 November 2024 at COP29, three months ahead of the deadline, the UK’s 2035 NDC target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels, excluding emissions from international aviation and shipping. The 2035 NDC is based on advice from the independent Climate Change Committee. It is a clear progression on the UK’s previous NDC pledging to reduce emissions by at least 68% by 2030, which remains in place. It is informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake from COP28 and is aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It is also aligned with the level of ambition in carbon budget 6 (2033 to 2037) on the pathway to net zero by 2050.
Today, the UK has submitted to the UNFCCC the information to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding of the 2035 NDC, to aid interpretation of the headline emissions reduction target. The ICTU contains information about the scope, timing, sectors and greenhouse gases covered by the target, as well as some high-level information on policies and measures involved in delivering the NDC. It also includes information on how the NDC was created, how the NDC is considered fair and ambitious and informed by the aims of the Paris agreement, the convention, and the outcomes of the global stocktake.
Making Britain a clean-energy superpower is one of the five national missions of this Government. We will deliver an updated cross-economy plan to meet our climate targets in due course, with full detail of policy packages for all sectors. This will outline the policies and proposals needed to deliver carbon budgets 4 to 6 and the 2030 and 2035 NDCs on the pathway to net zero by 2050.
The UK’s early and ambitious NDC will help restore our global climate leadership and encourage greater ambition from other countries. It is one important part of the UK’s overall contribution to global emissions reductions, alongside our international climate finance and other support.
[Source]
-
17 Dec 2024: Accelerating to Net Zero: CCC Progress Report and Clean Energy Superpower Mission
Accelerating to net zero offers huge opportunities for Britain. This transition will be one of the economic opportunities of the century—a chance to create hundreds of thousands of good jobs, to drive investment into all parts of the UK and to protect the UK economy from future price shocks that reliance on fossil fuels creates. Beyond growth and energy security, the transition to a net zero economy can deliver a range of social and health benefits for people right across the UK. As we act on how we heat our homes and buildings, fuel our transport and protect our natural world, we can cut fuel poverty, clean up our air, increase access to nature and improve quality of life.
Looking beyond the UK, we also have an important role to play. For example, the UK was the first country to set legally binding carbon budgets and the first major economy to establish a net zero target in law. Now, more than 90% of the world’s economy is covered by a net zero commitment. The UK showed leadership again at COP29, where we announced that our 2035 nationally determined contribution (NDC) headline target will reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels, excluding international aviation and shipping emissions. This is an ambitious, economy-wide emissions reduction target that aligns with the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the sixth carbon budget, set by the previous Government.
In response to the CCC’s 2024 progress report, today’s publication highlights the achievements that this Government have overseen already and looks forward to upcoming actions that will be key in reducing our emissions and seizing the economic opportunities of net zero.
This is just the beginning. Over the coming months we will set out the next steps for our mission, including publishing a Clean Power 2030 action plan, setting out a detailed updated plan to meet our carbon budgets, and setting the pathway to the seventh carbon budget by June 2026. These future moments will be key in delivering our pathway to net zero, bolstering growth and clean jobs, ensuring energy security, and delivering social and health benefits.
As required by the Climate Change Act 2008, I will place copies of today’s publication “Accelerating to Net Zero: Responding to the CCC Progress Report and delivering the Clean Energy Superpower Mission” in the Libraries of both Houses.
[Source]
-
17 Dec 2024: Topical Questions
The truth is that there is only one way to get bills down sustainably in this country, which is to drive towards clean energy. The Conservatives used to believe that, too; then, in September 2023, the former Prime Minister took them on an anti-net zero crusade, and it is only getting worse.
[Source]
This is a Government with a world-leading position when it comes to oil and gas, and we will do the right thing for the environment and climate change and the right thing to ensure that there is a just transition in the North sea.
[Source]
-
17 Dec 2024: Energy Security
Last Friday, we published our landmark clean power action plan, which sets out the route towards our world-leading 2030 clean power mission, including wholesale reform of the grid and planning to make it happen. This is the route to getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets and delivering energy security, lower bills and good jobs for the British people, as well as tackling the climate crisis.
[Source]
-
16 Dec 2024: Clean Power 2030 Action Plan
On Friday 13 December the Government published our clean power 2030 action plan. This is an important step towards delivering the Prime Minister’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, by achieving clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy, and follows on from his “plan for change” speech this December.
We are undergoing a significant transformation of our energy system, and this transition needs to accelerate to meet the Government’s 2030 clean power goal, secure the economic opportunities it presents, and respond to the wider challenges presented by our ageing energy infrastructure. Our plan will play a critical role in delivering this acceleration, unlocking billions of pounds of private investment. It outlines the most ambitious reforms to Britain’s energy system in a generation to make our country’s energy secure, protect households from volatile international fossil fuel markets, reindustrialise the country with thousands of skilled jobs, and tackle the climate crisis. This plan will provide the foundation for the UK to build an energy system that can bring down bills for households and businesses for good.
[Source]
-
26 Nov 2024: COP29
12:44
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about COP29.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Prescott. He was a fighter for social justice and a champion of the environment. He rightfully has global recognition for his role in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, and he showed how politics can change lives for the better. I send my deepest condolences to Pauline and his family.
The UK attended COP29 to fight for our national interest—speeding up the clean energy transition in the interests of jobs, energy security and economic growth, and tackling the climate crisis for today’s and future generations. In Baku, our message was clear: Britain is back in the business of global climate leadership.
We know that the impacts of the climate crisis know no borders. We have already seen the extreme impacts we can face here in Britain, and we know that if we do not act those impacts will get much worse. That is why, as the Prime Minister said at COP29, there is no national security without climate security. It is precisely because Britain represents only around 1% of annual global emissions that we have to work with others to ensure the remaining 99% of emissions are addressed to protect the British people.
The COP talks are always complex, but those circumstances made this set of talks particularly so. I put on record my thanks to our outstanding team of civil servants who supported me at COP. I was repeatedly struck by the enormous respect they have from so many countries around the world. The UK’s negotiating team was led by Alison Campbell, who is leaving to work with the UN Secretary-General. I want to put on record my special thanks to her in helping us to reach an agreement.
The agreement reached is to provide and mobilise at least $300 billion of climate finance by 2035 for developing countries. Much of that will come from the multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, which have stepped up to set a target to substantially increase the climate finance they provide. Importantly, for the first time, the agreement reflects a new global landscape, where traditional donors will be joined by big emitters such as China to help finance the transition. That is fair and right.
The UK will decide what our own contribution will be in the context of our spending review and fiscal situation, and that will come from within the UK aid budget. I can inform the House that, if delivered with the same impact as UK climate finance, the $300 billion deal could lead to emissions reductions equivalent to more than 15 times the UK’s annual emissions, as well as helping to protect up to 1 billion people in developing countries from the effects of floods, heatwaves and droughts. Crucially, the agreement will accelerate the global clean energy transition, which offers the prospect of export and economic opportunities here in Britain. Let nobody be in any doubt: this agreement is absolutely in our national interest.
In other respects, the talks were more disappointing. At COP28, the world made a historic agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. That agreement stands, but we did not reach agreement this year on how to take the commitment forward, not because the text put forward was too ambitious, but because it was not ambitious enough. In particular, many developing countries, including the small island states, felt that the text was inadequate given the scale of the climate emergency. Developed countries, including Britain, agreed with that view. That offers an important lesson. Under this Government, Britain is part of a global coalition for ambitious climate action that spans global north and global south—it is at the global centre ground of climate politics. We will seek to build on the agreement at COP30 next year, in Brazil.
At COP29, the UK also made important announcements on countering deforestation, scaling up private finance and nuclear co-operation as part of the clean energy transition. The Prime Minister also announced our nationally determined contribution to reducing emissions by at least 81% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels, following the advice that we received from the independent Climate Change Committee. Let me be clear: that target is right for Britain—for energy security, good jobs and growth.
It is in our national interest to use the power of our example to work with others to speed up the clean energy transition globally, just as the Climate Change Act 2008, which was supported by Members from across this House, inspired others to follow our lead. That is why at the G20 in Brazil, the Prime Minister launched the global clean power alliance, along with a number of other countries, to drive forward the transition.
That is just the start of the work that we need to do in the run-up to COP30 to make next year’s talks a success, because the truth is that despite progress over the last two weeks, we are halfway through the decisive decade for limiting warming to 1.5°C, and the world is way off-track. Other countries, such as Brazil, have also announced ambitious NDCs, and in the months ahead, we will continue to push others to go further, faster, on raising ambition, scaling up finance, protecting nature and forests, and driving forward the clean energy transition.
The COP process is tortuous and progress is too slow. However, this Government believe that while multilateralism—in other words, co-operating with others—is hard, it is truly the only way to fight for Britain. Those who say that we should disengage from the negotiations and step off the stage would let down our country, deprive us of a voice and leave future generations paying the price. Despite all the difficulties, at COP29, one truth was overwhelmingly clear: the global transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy is happening, and it is unstoppable because clean energy is the route to energy security, unstoppable because it is the economic opportunity of our time, and unstoppable because people in Britain and around the world can see that the climate crisis is here, and that unless we act, things will only get worse.
In less than five months, this Government have shown that we will seize the opportunities of speeding up at home, and have demonstrated climate leadership abroad, in order to deliver energy independence, lower bills, good jobs, economic growth and the security of a stable climate. We are doing all we can to keep the British people safe, now and for generations to come. I commend the statement to the House.
[Source]
12:55
Let me give the shadow Secretary of State a little lesson about opposition. The job of the Opposition is to oppose the Government, not to oppose themselves. This is where she has ended up: out the window goes any commitment to climate action. She is ignoring the fact that it is a route to energy security, good jobs and lower bills, ignoring the fact that it is backed by business, and ignoring the fact that this country has an honourable tradition of bipartisan consensus on the issue. I am happy to say that the previous Government proposed some ambitious targets, and that COP26 was an important milestone for the world. This is not just irresponsible, and not just crass opportunism; it has helped take the Conservative party down to its worst election defeat in 200 years, so this approach will not work for her.
Let me tell the shadow Secretary of State what the clean energy superpower mission means for Britain. It means cleaning up our power system, so that we do not leave the country exposed to fossil fuels, as the previous Government did. It means new jobs in carbon capture and storage as we decarbonise industry and re-industrialise. It means energy efficiency in homes, meaning lower bills, warmer homes and lower emissions. As for the NESO report that she talked about, I know that it is deeply disappointing to her, but we have an independent report that says that 2030 is achievable—she said that it was not. It also says that it will give us energy security—she says that it will not. It also says that it can lead to lower electricity, which she constantly denies.
[Source]
13:09
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Two truths came out of COP: first, the transition is unstoppable and, secondly, it is not going fast enough. There is such a difference from a decade ago—my hon. Friend, who was there with me, is nodding in agreement—because every country knows that the climate crisis is happening and is affecting them. The testimony I heard was like the testimony that we could provide about what people are seeing. Every country knows they have to act, and while they all face constraints in acting, they also know—this is the big change from a decade ago—that it is massively in their economic interests. There is a race on for the good jobs of the future, and the clean energy transition can provide them.
[Source]
12:59
Let me pick out a couple of the points she made. First, the point about the devastating effects of the climate crisis already being apparent is important. Part of the danger is that those effects will end up being the new normal, and we will just think of them as part of life. They are part of life in a sense and, as she said, we need the right flood defences in place and so on, but we also need to realise that those effects will get significantly worse if we do not act. Future generations will, frankly, hold us in infamy, saying, “You knew about the scale of the devastation and had seen a preview of what was to come, and you decided you couldn’t act,” so she is absolutely right.
I will make one more point, which is part of what the hon. Lady was saying: this is a climate crisis and a nature crisis. It is a climate and biodiversity crisis. It was a bit disappointing that the nature part of the agenda at COP did not get the attention it deserved, and that will be important for COP30 in Brazil.
[Source]
As far as COP29 is concerned, we are speeding up global action. As I described in my statement, this finance deal could mean a reduction equivalent to 15 times the emissions of Britain. That is hard going, but it is the way to reduce the temperature rises that will take place. The world is in danger of busting through 1.5°C and going beyond that. That is why action is so urgent and why this finance deal really matters.
[Source]
Thanks so much for the support. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. It has always been the case that climate finance is part of the aid budget—that is not some new announcement I have made. Obviously, that is a decision that we make, along with the Foreign Office and other colleagues across Government, about the right balance of resources and where the need is greatest.
[Source]
13:24
I will resist the second half of my hon. Friend’s question, if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker. On the first part of his question, the COP process does have its critics, so I will say a couple of things. First, 15 years ago, when I last attended the COP as Secretary of State in Copenhagen, no country was signed up to net zero. Now, 90% of the world’s GDP is covered by net zero. That is not only because of the COP, but that process of international engagement is important, and it is a forcing mechanism to put world leaders on the spot. Secondly, the reason why it is hard is largely because we have 198 countries all trying to agree, which is difficult. If people can think of improvements to the system, that is great, but that engagement is really important.
[Source]
13:25
The right hon. Gentleman and I have been debating these issues for 15 years, and I hazard a guess that we will not end up agreeing. The truth about the climate crisis is that it is the biggest potential cost that future generations can face. There will be trillions of costs across the world and tens and hundreds of billions of costs in the UK if we do not act. All the evidence is that the costs of acting on climate change are much lower than the costs of not acting.
[Source]
13:31
Both the points that my hon. Friend makes are right. I am happy to acknowledge the role of Theresa May in putting net zero into law, as well as that of Alok Sharma and even Boris Johnson, who fought to champion some of these issues. It is a real shame, and it speaks volumes, that we can say those things and the Conservatives do not.
[Source]
-
12 Nov 2024: Paris Emissions Reduction Target: UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution
On Tuesday 12 November at the 29th UNFCCC conference of the parties (COP29) in Baku, the Prime Minister will announce the UK’s 2035 nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris agreement. This will commit the UK to reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels, excluding emissions from international aviation and shipping.
The 2035 NDC is based on advice from the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC). It is a clear progression on the UK’s previous NDC pledging to reduce emissions by at least 68% by 2030. It was informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake from COP28 and is aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. It is aligned with the level of ambition in carbon budget 6 (2033-37) on the pathway to net zero by 2050.
The headline target will be followed by submission of the detail underpinning the NDC—known as information to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding (ICTU)—to the United Nations framework convention on climate change ahead of the February 2025 deadline. A copy of the ICTU will be laid in the Houses of Parliament.
The UK’s early and ambitious NDC will help restore our global climate leadership and encourage greater ambition from other countries. It is one important part of the UK’s overall contribution to global emissions reductions, alongside our international climate finance and other support.
Globally, the world is way off track from meeting the Paris agreement temperature goal. Climate action must be accelerated drastically to reduce emissions and keep the annual average global temperature rise below 1.5°C. The ambition and delivery of the next round of NDCs, due to be submitted to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) by February 2025 and implemented in the 2030s, will be critical in enabling this.
The UK’s domestic action is the first crucial step to restoring UK international leadership on climate change. The clean energy transition is also the economic opportunity of the 21st century and will support the creation of hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the UK and protect our economy from future price shocks while delivering a range of social and health benefits.
That is why making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government—delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy.
[Source]
-
11 Nov 2024: COP29: Priorities
We are halfway through the critical decade for tackling climate change, but the world is off-track from limiting global warming to 1.5°C. We are facing a triple planetary crisis of climate, biodiversity loss and pollution posing critical threats to the UK’s national interests across security, resilience, health, the economy and partnerships with other countries.
With global temperatures continuing to rise, the impacts of the climate and nature crises—storms, floods, droughts, food and water insecurity, displaced communities—will be a profound source of global disorder. To engage only with the effects of climate change, war, poverty, pandemics or irregular migration when they arrive on our doorstep is to set ourselves up to fail. This is why the UK needs to re-establish itself as a climate leader on the global stage.
Taking on the challenge of climate change is also an incredible opportunity for jobs and growth all across the country. It will improve our health, our quality of life and our overall prosperity.
The Government have already begun work to deliver on this opportunity, through our mission to achieve clean power by 2030 and accelerating our transition to net zero. We have lifted the de facto ban on onshore wind in England, consented significant amounts of solar, introduced legislation to switch on Great British Energy, created the UK’s first carbon capture clusters, and held the most successful renewables auction to date.
We have put clean energy at the heart of our mission-driven Government, because we know that boosting home-grown, renewable energy is the best way to reduce our exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, protect bill payers, and strengthen our energy independence. The UK will restore its position as a global leader on climate action, building on the power of example to encourage other nations to follow its lead, and working with international partners to support decarbonisation globally.
COP28 in Dubai saw the first global stocktake under the Paris agreement which illustrated the scale of the challenge—by 2030, emissions need to fall by 43% versus the 2% currently projected and climate finance must increase at least fivefold, drawing on all sources.
The UK will work with the COP29 presidency and other partners to push for progress in the following three key areas:
Scaling up finance from all sources to accelerate global transitions . We need to agree an ambitious new collective quantified goal on climate finance for the period after 2025. The UK is committed to working with countries to design a climate finance goal that is fit for purpose and supports those most vulnerable to climate impacts, crowding in private finance while recognising the constraints on the public finances in the UK. Outside the negotiations, we need to accelerate reform of the global financial system to address the transition and resilience finance gaps and barriers that countries face.
Scaling up ambition and action to keep 1. 5 Paris agreement goal within reach ahead of COP30 . As agreed at COP28, countries must come forward with ambitious, all-economy, 1.5°C-aligned nationally determined contributions for 2035 by next February to bridge the emissions gap. As the Prime Minister announced at the United Nations General Assembly in September, the UK will come forward with our own ambitious, 1.5-aligned NDC at COP29 and will support others to do the same. Globally, we need to accelerate the global transition in energy and other sectors and the UK will show progress on this through initiatives such as the breakthrough agenda and the global clean power alliance—a progressive alliance of developed and developing countries working together to accelerate the deployment of clean power globally and mobilise public and private finance to support clean energy. The alliance will help to bridge the financing gap with the global south and enable more countries to secure the benefits of clean, cheap power.
Across all these areas, we must recognise the crucial, often overlooked role of high-ambition action on nature including forests in mitigating and adapting to climate change. This means aligning UNFCCC outcomes with the targets of the global biodiversity framework and joining up approaches to tackling climate, biodiversity, and pollution across NDCs, national adaptation plans and national biodiversity strategies and action plans all in the broader context of achieving the sustainable development goals. It includes protecting the ocean through the ocean and climate change dialogue and restoring forests through the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership.
We are determined to do everything in our power to accelerate global action to reduce emissions this decade and keep within reach the 1.5°C goal in the Paris agreement.
[Source]
-
29 Oct 2024: Great British Energy Bill
18:44
I want to thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage: the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who has done an incredible job steering the Bill through Committee; Members across the House who have scrutinised the Bill in Committee; all the parliamentary staff who have worked on the Bill; and the fantastic officials in my Department who have moved at such speed over the last four months.
I also want to thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee, all of whom were in support of establishing Great British Energy. I am sure that the House will be interested in the list. They include SSE, EDF, Energy UK, RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Nesta, the Green Alliance, the Net Zero Technology Centre, the TUC, Prospect and the GMB. And they are not the only ones. I can inform the House that they join a growing list of supporters, including the CBI, the Aldersgate Group, Octopus Energy, E.ON, the Hydrogen Energy Association, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Port of Aberdeen, the University of Aberdeen and, of course, the British people themselves, who overwhelmingly backed Great British Energy at the general election. Sadly, the only people you can find to oppose Great British Energy are the faction of a sect of a once-great party sitting on the Opposition Benches.
[Source]
-
17 Oct 2024: Energy Infrastructure Planning Application: North Lincolnshire
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Ltd for development consent for the construction and operation of a combined heat and power enabled energy generating development, with an electrical output of up to 95 megawatts, incorporating carbon capture, associated district heat and private wire networks, hydrogen production, ash treatment, and other associated developments on land at Flixborough industrial estate, Scunthorpe.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Planning Act 2008 to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on the North Lincolnshire green energy park application is 18 October 2024.
[Source]
-
8 Oct 2024: Topical Questions
As well as our measures on onshore wind, solar and renewables, this Government have begun legislating for Great British Energy and setting out our plan for proper standards for private and social renters to take 1 million families out of fuel poverty, and on Friday we announced deals to kick-start Britain’s carbon capture industry. All of this will deliver our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It is right for bills, right for energy security, right for jobs and right for climate leadership.
[Source]
12:28
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue that I am afraid was not solved by the last Government. We are working at pace with National Grid, and I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), will be happy to talk to him further about the work we are doing.
[Source]
12:29
My hon. Friend raises the important issue that what will define the future for North sea workers is whether there is a plan for future jobs in offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. There was no plan from the previous Government; this Government are absolutely determined to ensure a just transition for those workers, using the power of Government and a proper industrial policy to make it happen.
[Source]
Every planning application and development consent order is assessed on its merits. Importantly, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), is polishing a land use framework, which has long been needed in this country. It will set out the balance between food security, the use of renewable energy, the restoration of nature and the role of farming. I hope that will help with some of the issues that hon. Members are facing.
[Source]
-
8 Oct 2024: Zero Carbon Electricity System
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of both rooftop solar and ground-mounted solar. I can tell him that, as part of Great British Energy’s plans, we want to work with local schools, local hospitals and, indeed, local leaders to have a solar panels programme, because this is a way to rapidly decarbonise and to save money off bills.
[Source]
I congratulate my hon. Friend, but particularly the Fairwater community campus on the work it is doing. I think he highlights a very important issue. By helping to decarbonise public buildings, including schools, we help not only to cut our carbon emissions, but, crucially, to save money for those schools that they can then use for frontline services.
[Source]
-
8 Oct 2024: Climate Change: International Work
11:41
This Government believe that we can only ensure climate security for further generations in the UK if we lead globally. That was the message of the Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly with our world-leading 2030 clean power plan, no new oil and gas licences, and playing our part in reforming the global financial system. Next month I will be attending the COP29 talks in Azerbaijan to stand up for Britain’s interests.
[Source]
I will say one thing in particular to my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister said at the United Nations General Assembly that we will be unveiling our nationally determined contribution—our target for 2035—at COP29. We are doing that because the danger is that the world settles into a low-ambition equilibrium when it comes to tackling these issues. By having a 1.5º aligned target, we hope to set a good benchmark and a good example for the world.
[Source]
I take the hon. Gentleman seriously on these issues, and I undertake to write to him or to have one of the Ministers write to him. I make the general point that rewilding and nature-based solutions are an essential part of tackling the climate crisis.
[Source]
-
7 Oct 2024: Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage
18:14
By contrast, just three months since we came to office, this Government have turned promise into reality. I can confirm to the House that we have agreed commercial terms, and £21.7 billion of funding over 25 years for five carbon capture, usage and storage projects across two clusters: HyNet in the north-west, and the East Coast Cluster in the north-east. This announcement will enable the construction of two transport and storage networks that will underpin this new industry. The highways for carbon capture and the deals we have agreed will also kick-start development of Net Zero Teesside, the world’s largest gas with CCUS plant, and—these are both in Ellesmere Port—Protos, a new CCUS energy from waste facility, and EET Hydrogen, the UK’s first large-scale blue hydrogen project, which is the cleanest in the world. They will crowd in £8 billion of private investment across the two clusters, creating 4,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands and building an initial capacity to remove over 8.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions each and every year. I pay tribute to the six new Labour MPs in Teesside and colleagues across the north-west who have been brilliant champions for those projects. This is just the start; we will have more to say in the coming months about carbon capture sites in Humberside, Scotland and elsewhere around the country.
This investment is the right thing to do for Britain. CCUS will unlock the decarbonisation of hard-to-abate sectors, from chemicals to cement; enable the production of low-carbon hydrogen; and, by capturing emissions from gas-fired power stations, play an important role, alongside renewables and nuclear, in delivering clean power by 2030 and beyond. That is why experts in bodies ranging from the Climate Change Committee to the International Energy Agency are clear that carbon capture is critical to our meeting our climate commitments. There are those who doubt that. To them I quote James Richardson, the acting chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said on Friday quite simply:
“Reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS”,
“account for almost 20% of global CO2 emissions today”.
That is all part of the action of a Government who, in the last three months, have shown that we are in a hurry to deliver our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. We have lifted the onshore wind ban, consented to record amounts of nationally significant solar, launched Great British Energy, delivered the most successful renewables auction in British history, and set out our plans to lift more than a million households out of fuel poverty. We are moving apace, both because of the urgency of the challenges that we face and because of this Government’s determination to win for Britain. Last week marked the end of one chapter in our country’s energy story and the start of a new one—a new era showing that we can decarbonise and reindustrialise, a new era of clean energy jobs and investment in our industrial heartlands, and a new era of climate leadership. I commend this statement to the House.
[Source]
18:25
That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon. Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership. I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure and this Government’s delivery.
[Source]
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he makes a really important point. Some people are sceptical about the use of carbon capture and storage. The truth is that for hard-to-abate industries—cement, for example—unless we have CCS technology, either there will be no future for these industries or they will not be able to decarbonise. Yes, it is an investment, but it is absolutely crucial, and I am struck by what the IEA said. We are talking about probably 20% of industry, and we are doing the right thing for Britain and setting an example to the world.
I always say on these occasions that, when it comes to blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, we need all the technologies at our disposal on this decarbonisation journey. It is going to be a primarily renewables-based system, but nuclear has an important role and we need dispatchable decarbonised or low-carbon generation as well. All these things have a role, and the pathway will become clearer over time, but this issue is so urgent that I want to have all the technologies at our disposal.
[Source]
On the hon. Lady’s broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power. She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [ Interruption. ] Yes, I am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that is what the combination of public and private sectors working together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.
[Source]
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson): there is a role for both blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well. It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.
[Source]
18:41
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I talked to the UK chair of ExxonMobil last week about this issue, and I believe that the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), is going to meet him later this week. For the benefit of the House, this was not in either track 1 or track 2—it was part of the Solent cluster—but we want all the projects to go ahead and the Solent cluster has real potential and is an important part of this. The UK chair told me that this temporary pause was certainly nothing to do with the actions of this Government, but, frankly, was to do with the time it had taken the previous Government to get going on this. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue our dialogue with the company about these issues, including on the more technical issues that he is talking about.
[Source]
18:43
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this subject. She is unusual in this House, in that she is an engineer by background and actually knows about these issues. She is absolutely right about this. Our world-leading scientists and engineers are a crucial part of our playing a world-leading role in this technology. I also say to those who are worried about the risk of this technology that the much, much greater risk is in not acting. The risk before us is the climate crisis that grows every day, and it is the right thing to do to get CCS moving.
[Source]
18:46
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is very much part of our plans for the future. On his second point, we will obviously set out all those details in response to the work of the Climate Change Committee. Frankly, one thing that we are struggling with is the delays under the last Government. I have set out the impact of this project and will be setting out the impact of future projects when they are announced.
[Source]
18:51
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is why one of the projects we funded is an energy from waste project. This is exactly the kind of role that CCS can play.
[Source]
18:54
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, although I do not agree. First, this is a long-term investment in the country’s future, and I think the Chancellor is far-sighted in recognising its importance. Secondly, there are hard-to-abate industries that, without carbon capture, will find it very hard to enter a decarbonised world. We have to protect those industries, but I agree that, where industries can decarbonise without CCS, of course we want them to do so.
[Source]
18:57
It is early, but I worry about the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to new grid infrastructure, so goodness knows what will happen to the renewables. He also opposes carbon capture, so goodness knows what will happen to the hard-to-abate industries. I am all in favour of investing in woodlands, but we need all of these things. I want to be generous to the Green party— [ Interruption. ] I am a generous person, and I am sure the Green party has the best of intentions, but the scale of the transition means this country needs all of these technologies. It is not about choosing to invest in the woodlands and not investing in grid infrastructure or CCS. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about this, because we need all of these technologies.
[Source]
19:01
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I was with the Prime Minister in New York in the last couple of weeks, talking to international partners about where the new British Government stood, and there is a sense that British leadership is back. However, if I had said to them, “We can’t do carbon capture; that’s just not an answer,” they would have said, “Well, what are we going to do about our industries?” My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to have all the solutions at our disposal, both for British leadership and for global decarbonisation.
[Source]
19:02
I welcome the hon. Member to the House. We have all kinds of projects in place to encourage business to decarbonise; indeed, our drive for clean power by 2030 is part of ensuring that we decarbonise the electricity system to help businesses to be part of the decarbonisation journey. However, I just do not recognise the picture that he paints—that this proposal is somehow a disincentive for companies. I hear lots of businesses asking how they are going to exist, frankly, in a decarbonised world. What is the answer, for example, for the cement industry in a decarbonised world? That is why CCS is so vital.
[Source]
I am all in favour of big tomatoes and improving our food security. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential uses of CCUS. On Friday, we were at a glass factory that will be using hydrogen from a new project and will be the beneficiary of a decarbonised supply. I look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman.
[Source]
-
12 Sep 2024: Grangemouth Oil Refinery: Jobs
Immediate career support for workers. The UK and Scottish Governments will provide tailored support that will help affected workers in finding new employment—and Grangemouth will be among the first areas that the new office for clean energy jobs will work with to help deliver a just transition.
[Source]
-
3 Sep 2024: Contracts for Difference: Allocation Round 6 Results
The lifting of the onshore wind ban, this very successful allocation round 6, and the creation of Great British Energy, all signal the ramping up of our efforts to deliver clean power by 2030 and net zero, moving towards energy independence and protecting families from volatile fossil fuel prices. Going forwards, we will continue to work with investors, developers, and the supply chain to accelerate our mission to become a clean energy superpower.
[Source]
-
3 Sep 2024: Contracts for Difference
13:52
The success of this round does not just offer greater energy security for the British people; it also offers the possibility of good jobs throughout Britain. But that will not happen without action by Government, because we know that too often in the past renewable energy produced in Britain has not created enough good jobs in Britain. With Great British Energy and our national wealth fund, we will invest to make sure our clean power mission produces jobs in every corner of the United Kingdom.
This Government have been in office for less than two months. In that time, we have lifted the onshore wind ban, consented more nationally significant solar capacity in one week than the last Government did in 14 years, and now delivered the most successful renewables auction in the history of the country. And on Thursday we will debate the Second Reading of the Great British Energy Bill. This is a Government in a hurry to deliver our mission: energy security, lower bills, good jobs and tackling the climate crisis. I commend this statement to the House.
[Source]
13:59
Let me deal with the hon. Member’s specific points. If I may say so respectfully, I feel like he answered some of his own questions. He draws attention to the fact that energy bills are rising from 1 October. He is right about that, and that is deeply regrettable. Why is that happening? Because we are exposed to international gas markets. This is about power that we do not control. Every solar panel that we do not put up, every onshore wind turbine that we do not erect, and every piece of grid that we do not build leaves us more exposed. The Conservative party is in a dilemma on this, because it is facing both ways, but it has to face up to that fact. Of course we will have a proper and orderly transition in the North sea, keeping existing fields open for their lifetime and having a just transition for the workforce, but the idea that the Conservative party and some of its erstwhile friends are clinging to—that fossil fuels will get us out of this—is completely belied by all the facts and the crisis that we went through.
The shadow Minister says—and I agree with him—that we need to have jobs in this country. He says it as if he finds it hard to remember who has been in power for the past 14 years. It is terrible, he says, that everything is being produced elsewhere. He is right. Germany has almost twice as many renewable energy jobs per capita as the UK. Sweden has almost three times as many, but, most interestingly, Denmark, with its publicly owned energy company, Ørsted, has almost four times as many.
[Source]
-
25 Jul 2024: Great British Energy
Our country faces huge challenges. More than two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, families and businesses continue to pay the price for Britain’s energy insecurity. Bills remain hundreds of pounds higher than before the energy crisis began and are expected to rise again soon. At the same time, we are confronted by the climate crisis all around us, not a future threat but a present reality, and there is an unmet demand for good jobs and economic opportunities all across Britain.
[Source]
-
18 Jul 2024: Clean Energy Superpower Mission
11:39
We are moving at this pace for one overriding reason: the urgency of the challenges we face. We have the challenge of our energy insecurity, laid bare by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and paid for by the British people in the worst cost of living crisis in generations. We have the challenge of an economy that does not work for working people, with too few good jobs at decent wages. We have the challenge of the climate crisis—not a future threat, but a present reality. This Government have a driving philosophy: homegrown clean energy can help us tackle all those challenges, including crucially energy security. Today the Climate Change Committee publishes its progress report to Parliament. I thank the interim chair Piers Forster and the interim chief executive James Richardson for their excellent work.
“British-based renewable energy is the cheapest and fastest way to reduce vulnerability to volatile global fossil fuel markets. The faster we get off fossil fuels, the more secure we become.”
It is right. That is why making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy.
Today, I set out our next steps. First, onshore wind is one of the cheapest sources of power that we have. To those in the House who claimed they were protecting communities with the onshore wind ban, let us be clear: they have undermined our energy security and set back the fight against the climate crisis. That is why in the first 72 hours of this Government we lifted the ban, which today I confirm formally to the House. Under the onshore wind ban, the pipeline of projects in England shrank by 90%.
Over a year ago, the last Government’s net zero tsar Chris Skidmore, whom I pay tribute to, made a recommendation of an onshore wind taskforce to drive forward projects. The last Government ignored it; we will implement it. The taskforce will work with developers to rebuild the pipeline of projects.
Credible external estimates suggest that ground-mounted solar used just 0.1% of our land in 2022. The biggest threat to nature and food security and to our rural communities is not solar panels or onshore wind; it is the climate crisis, which threatens our best farmland, food production and the livelihoods of farmers. The Government will proceed not on the basis of myth and false information, but on evidence. Every time, the previous Government ducked, delayed and denied the difficult decisions needed for clean energy, that made us less secure, raised bills and undermined climate action. No more.
Great British Energy, headquartered in Scotland, will invest in home-grown clean energy to increase our energy independence, create good jobs with strong trade unions and tackle the climate crisis. It will invest in technologies such as nuclear, offshore wind, tidal, hydrogen and carbon capture, and ensure a just transition for our oil and gas communities. GB Energy will also oversee the biggest expansion of community energy in British history through our local power plan. The Government believe in the ownership of British assets by the British people, for the benefit of the British people. Following the people’s verdict at the general election, I hope that this is a patriotic mission that the whole House can get behind.
I have seen 19 years of debates on climate and energy in this House. The clean energy transition represents the biggest transformation of our economy for 200 years, and it is massively challenging. We have been at our best as a country, and as a House, when we have worked together for the sake of the national interest. I pay tribute to people of all parties who have been champions of this agenda over the past 14 years: Baroness May, who legislated for net zero; the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who oversaw the growth of offshore wind; Caroline Lucas; and on the Labour Benches, my friend Alan Whitehead.
One of my early decisions was to re-establish the role of the Secretary of State as the lead climate negotiator in my Department, because we can only protect future generations with strong action at home and leadership abroad. Next week in London I will host the President of this year’s COP29 in Azerbaijan. He will be joined by the Presidents of COP28 and COP30. I have invited the President of COP 26, Lord Sharma, who presided with such distinction, to join our discussions. This is a sign of how I intend to go on—working with people of all parties and none in this national endeavour. That is what the British people have a right to expect of us. As the Prime Minister rightly says, “Country first, party second.” That is more true on this issue than any other. This Government will act at pace and work with anyone who shares our mission. I commend this statement to the House.
[Source]
11:53
On the points the right hon. Lady made, there is a fundamental issue, which is that unless we drive for clean energy—this is what the Climate Change Committee said; I strongly recommend that right hon. and hon. Members read it—we will end up energy insecure. We had the worst cost of living crisis in generations because of our exposure to fossil fuels, both domestically and internationally, set and sold on the world market. Unless we drive for clean energy, we will end up paying more for energy. The House would not know that from what she said about our 2030 target. She had a target when she was in government of 95% clean power by 2030. Of course, targets did not matter for the previous Government, because they were always miles away from reaching them.
As for the North sea, we set out our manifesto position, which is not to issue licences to explore new fields but to keep existing fields for their lifetime. Here is the truth of the conversation that we must have. The fate of North sea oil and gas communities is defined by these questions. Do we drive forward the clean energy of the future? Have we a plan for carbon capture and storage? Have we a plan for hydrogen? Have we a plan for offshore wind? The Conservatives had no such plans, so we will take no lectures on just transitions from them.
In my experience, when you lose a general election a period of reflection is in order, and I say to Conservative Members that they need to reflect long and hard on the signals that they sent in this election. Their climate lurch was a disaster—a disaster for them electorally, but, much more important to me, a disaster for the country. Under this Government, Britain is back, open for business and climate leadership.
[Source]
My hon. Friend has long been an eloquent advocate for the role that business can play in generating the clean energy of our future and generating prosperity. I can absolutely confirm that we want to embrace the widest range of technologies. Obviously we must ensure that that gives value for money, but what I always say on these occasions is that the climate crisis and the energy security challenge are so big for us as a country that we must embrace every form of technology at our disposal, because that is the only way in which we will succeed.
[Source]
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As with any planning decisions, there are clear parameters in the legislation on the consultation that needs to take place with local communities. I gently point out to her that, nine years ago, the last Government banned onshore wind in England for some of the reasons that she set out. I thought that was a mistake at the time, and it turned out to be even more of a mistake than I thought, because it exposed us to energy insecurity. We have to make judgments as Members of this House. Given the scale of the climate crisis, the energy insecurity and the energy security threat that we face, do we believe that we need to build infrastructure? I happen to believe that we do—yes, with community consent; yes, with community benefit; and yes, with the planning rules that I have set out.
[Source]
In the spirit that I spoke about in my statement, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on deep geothermal? It was an outstanding example of how Members of Parliament can advance the role that particular technologies can play. He is a most eloquent advocate for this technology. Among the many places I went during the election campaign, I had the chance to see deep geothermal in Cornwall, which also has the potential for lithium mining: it is a source of critical minerals. Between me and the new Minister for energy—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is going to be a very busy man—we will make sure that we meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to take forward this agenda.
[Source]
12:10
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this project to my attention. In a way, the questions from both sides of the House demonstrate the huge potential we have in this area, not just to tackle the climate crisis and energy insecurity but to create the good jobs of the future. I undertake that the Department will want to look closely at her project.
[Source]
12:20
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He draws attention to a fact in the Climate Change Committee report that is worth underlining: we have an internationally set, nationally determined contribution of 68% reductions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. However, the Climate Change Committee said this morning that only a third of the emissions reductions required are covered by credible plans—that is the legacy we have been left. I am determined that we meet those targets, which is why we have to speed up and act in a way that the last Government did not.
My hon. Friend is right about clean energy. As I said earlier, this is a debate that this country will have to have. We can say no to clean energy and to building grids, but that will leave us poorer and more exposed, and mean that we are not doing what is required to tackle the climate crisis. This Government have made their choice; others will have to do so too.
[Source]
12:23
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election. I have worked with her in the past and I know she will be an outstanding Member of Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, is going to be very busy, but I am sure he will happily meet her to discuss her question. She raises community energy schemes.
[Source]
12:24
The most important thing is to secure a just transition for those communities, as set out in our manifesto, through £8.3 billion from Great British Energy and over £7 billion from our national wealth fund. The truth is that there is massive debate in the House about licensing. The right hon. Gentleman will not have been at the debate when we discussed these issues, but the difference it makes to how much of our gas demand is produced domestically is that under the old Government— [Interruption.] Let me explain. Under the old Government policy, there would have been a 95% reduction in our demand met domestically, but under this Government’s policy, it will be 97%. For all the hue and cry from the Opposition, that is the reality.
[Source]
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I can confirm that GB Energy will play a role in all kinds of ways, and that we are certainly not restricting it in the way that she suggests. Furthermore, in the constructive spirit of these exchanges, I would ask that the Green party thinks about its commitment to tackling the climate crisis, which we all share, and then thinks about this question of infrastructure. If it wants to tackle the climate crisis, it should know that that simply will not happen if its leading members say no to new energy infrastructure.
[Source]
I am afraid that we have to conduct these debates on the basis of fact, not myth. Some 0.1% of our land, and around that amount of agricultural land, is being used for solar panels. We cannot proceed on the basis of myth. The hon. Gentleman talks about the farming community. Farmers want this. The National Farmers Union has supported this decision. Of course we will work with local communities, but every time an Opposition Member gets up and opposes clean energy, they are saying to the British people, “We are going to make you poorer. We are going to make Britain more energy insecure, and we are not going to tackle the climate crisis.”
[Source]
12:41
I will look at all proposals, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows that underground cables cost six to 10 times more; that is why the last Government did not agree to them. [ Official Report , 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 1WC.] (Correction) If part of our challenge is to cut bills for people, that is not a sustainable solution for the future. I am sympathetic to all MPs who raise issues on behalf of their constituents, but I gently say again to him that if we want to avoid a repeat of the cost of living crisis, if we want to tackle the climate crisis, and if we want energy security, we will have to build the grid in our country.
[Source]
12:48
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has asked me that question. The world wants to see British leadership, but British leadership starts at home with the power of example. If we do not show that we are acting at home then people say, “You’re telling us one thing abroad, but doing something different when it comes to your own domestic situation.” The truth is that COP29 in Azerbaijan and crucially COP30 in Brazil will be very important moments. COP30 is when the world has to come to terms with how far off track we are from 1.5°C, and put in our nationally determined contributions for 2035. I look forward to Britain playing as much of a constructive role in those negotiations as we can.
[Source]
I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to the House. He brings a wealth of knowledge and experience on these issues. I enjoyed my visit to Basingstoke. What really came home to me on that visit was young people’s enthusiasm for this agenda—not simply because they care about the climate crisis, but because they see this as a potential future for themselves, their friends and their family. I look forward to working with colleges such as his to make that a reality.
[Source]
-
18 Jul 2024: Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
The North Lincolnshire green energy park development consent order for the construction and operation of a combined heat and power enabled energy generating development, with an electrical output of up to 95 MWe, incorporating carbon capture, associated district heat and private wire networks, hydrogen production, ash treatment, and other associated developments on land at Flixborough industrial estate, Scunthorpe by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Ltd. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on 15 August 2023, and the previous deadline for a decision was 18 July 2024.
The decisions for those cases extended to 22 July have now been taken. In the case of the North Lincolnshire green energy park, the new deadline is 18 October 2024 to allow for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the evidence gathered by its review into the role of waste incineration capacity in the management of residual wastes in England.
The decision to set the new deadline for the North Lincolnshire green energy park application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[Source]
-
21 May 2024: Net Zero Target
11:38
Two weeks ago the Government were found, for a second time, to be in breach of the law over their climate targets. That failure will mean that families across the country will pay higher energy bills. The Court found:
[Source]
11:39
With a defence like that, I can see why the Government lost in court not just once but twice. Buried in the court documents is the confidential memo that reveals the real reason they lost the case—officials were telling Ministers that they had low or very low confidence that half their carbon reductions would be achieved. That is why they were found unlawful. The right hon. Lady comes to the House each month with her complacent nonsense, but the court judgment exposes the truth: the Government are way off track, abysmally failing to meet the climate emergency and pushing up bills for families as a result.
[Source]
-
16 Apr 2024: Topical Questions
12:21
That is simply not good enough. It is a year on. The right hon. Lady is the Energy Secretary; she should be delivering that compensation to people, and she is failing across the board. The onshore wind ban remains; the offshore wind market crashes; the insulation schemes are a disaster, while she spends her time appeasing the flat-earth, anti-net zero brigade in her own party. No wonder the former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) resigned. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State is failing in her job and the British people are paying the price?
[Source]
-
22 Jan 2024: Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
16:42
“this House, while affirming the need for urgent action to tackle the UK’s energy insecurity, the cost of living crisis, and the climate crisis, and for a managed, fair and prosperous transition for workers and communities, declines to give a Second Reading to the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill because mandating annual oil and gas licensing rounds will not reduce energy costs for households and businesses as the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has stated, will not enhance energy security, offers no plan for the future of the UK’s offshore energy communities, will ensure the UK remains at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets, is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest.”
The proposed legislation we are considering today will not cut bills or give us energy security, drives a coach and horses through our climate commitments and learns nothing from the worst cost of living crisis in memory, which the British people are still going through—a cost of living crisis caused by our dependence on fossil fuels. Since the launch of the Bill two months ago, the case for it has disintegrated on contact with reality. Let me remind the House of the series of unfortunate events that has befallen the Bill since its publication. On day one—launch day—the Energy Secretary went on TV with the big reveal, telling the public the Bill would not cut bills. Next we discovered from confidential minutes of the North Sea Transition Authority that it thought the Bill was unnecessary and compromised its independence. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) says from a sedentary position that that is not the case. He is wrong and I will read him the minutes:
[Source]
16:43
to energy security. Then Britain’s most respected climate expert, Lord Stern, pilloried it as “a deeply damaging mistake”. Then on the eve of COP—the conference of the parties—the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who signed net zero into law, said she disagreed with the Bill; to my knowledge, she does not support Just Stop Oil.
[Source]
16:44
Then the former COP president— [Interruption.] Let’s be serious. Then the former COP president the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), a man respected around the world who we were lucky to have playing that role at COP26, said the Bill was
Finally, their own net zero tsar—the man they trusted to guide them on questions of energy—is so disgusted by the Bill that he is not in the Chamber today. In fact, he is so ashamed that he has fled to the Chiltern Hundreds. That is certainly getting a long way away from the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State and her policies. It shows how far people will go. It is not so much the oil and gas extraction Bill but the Conservative MP extraction Bill that she is putting forward today. The former net zero tsar said:
We should take all these voices—Lord Browne, the former Prime Minister, the former net zero tsar and the former COP President— [ Interruption. ] I will come to all the arguments that the Secretary of State made, if she will give me a minute, as I develop my argument. The bigger point is that we face massive challenges as a country, but it is not the scale of our problems that is so apparent today, but the smallness of the Government’s response. We have a risible two-clause Bill that she knows will not make any difference to our energy security, because everyone who knows anything about this subject says so.
[Source]
16:51
The fourth bad argument is that the Bill will somehow protect jobs. That is wrong. We owe it to oil and gas communities to protect them in the transition, but given the Conservatives’ record in constituencies such as mine, we will not take lectures from them on just transitions. We should admit a truth: the fossil fuel market is not just deeply unstable for consumers, as we have seen over the last two years, but deeply unstable for workers. It is a total illusion that new licences will somehow guarantee jobs for North sea workers. In the last 10 years, the number of people working in oil and gas has more than halved. The International Energy Agency predicts a peak in fossil fuel demand by 2030. That is why its head said:
The Government have not generated the jobs that British workers deserve, and their fossil fuel policy and net zero roll-back has sent a terrible message to investors around the world. This is what Amanda Blanc, the chief executive officer of Aviva and the head of its UK transition plan taskforce, says about oil and gas and the Government’s position:
[Source]
16:59
The Government argue that the Bill can somehow be justified on climate grounds, which demands a level of absurdity that should make even them deeply embarrassed. Let us get this straight. We signed a global agreement at COP28 for a transition away from fossil fuels in line with the science. That science is unequivocal: we must leave the majority of fossil fuels in the ground. But at home, their domestic policy is what they call “maxing out” the North sea.
Let us get this clear: in the crucial coming two years, Ministers will travel around the world to try to turn that COP28 agreement into reality, but how will the conversation go? The UK Minister will say to other countries, “We want you to leave your fossil fuels in the ground, because that is the agreement from COP28.” The country we are trying to persuade will say to us, “Hang on a minute. You’re saying we should leave our fossil fuels in the ground, but you’re planning to extract all yours.” What will we say, other than, “Yes, the Government are practising total hypocrisy, but please do as we say, not as we do.” That is the truth. The science is unequivocal.
[Source]
16:57
Eighty per cent. of what we get from UK waters is exported, not used here. We said clearly that we would continue with existing oil and gas fields. There must be a transition, and we cannot carry on regardless and max out the North sea. I know the right hon. Gentleman cares about the climate. It is important to listen to the respected authorities on climate. There must be a reason why the International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee, the former President of COP26 the right hon. Member for Reading West, and Lord Stern all say that the world is genuinely on a burning platform, and unless we address the issue of fossil fuels, we will head not to 1.5° but to 3° of warming.
That is the truth. It is incredibly hard, but the idea that we will say, “Look, there is a climate crisis; this will not make any difference to our energy security; the Energy Secretary says that it will not cut bills; it is not the answer for the jobs of the future; but we will carry on doing it anyway”, is climate vandalism. I genuinely say that to the right hon. Gentleman. He shadowed me 15 years ago, and I know that he cares about these issues, along with the right hon. Member for Reading West. People who really care about these issues have wrestled with this question. We have listened to the experts and we have thought to ourselves, “What does the science tell us on the one hand, and what difference will this make on the other?” Fair-minded people have reached the conclusion that I have reached, as has Lord Stern and all the other authorities.
[Source]
16:59
I do not believe that it fulfils the kind of climate leadership that we pride ourselves on in this country. Here is another interesting fact for the House. UK Export Finance, I think with the guidance of the right hon. Member for Reading West, decided at COP26 that we would not finance oil and gas projects abroad. Now, there must be a reason why UKEF decided that. Presumably, the reason is that we want to make the transition away from fossil fuels. At the same time as UKEF decided not to do that, we will look like hypocrites if we do this by saying, “We’re just going to carry on maxing out at home.”
[Source]
17:02
The truth is that there are two roads for Britain’s future: driving to clean energy by 2030 to cut bills and make us energy independent, and GB Energy to bring jobs in clean energy here at home and be a climate leader; or a Government who take the wrong path, cling to expensive and insecure fossil fuels, and make the British people pay the price, as they have for the past 14 years. The truth is that the Bill speaks volumes about a Government out of ideas and embarked on that second path. The Bill is one of the last desperate acts of a dying Government. I urge the House to support our reasoned amendment and vote against the Bill tonight.
[Source]
-
16 Jan 2024: Topical Questions
In the past month, the former Prime Minister who legislated for net zero has condemned the Minister’s oil and gas policy. His colleague the former COP President has accused the Government of “not being serious” and the Government’s net zero tsar has resigned his seat in disgust. Why does the Minister think that that is?
[Source]
It is not just us who oppose the Minister’s Bill, but those on his own side—he has lost an MP over it. I know he brought down the last Government over fracking; he is trying to do it again with his new Bill. That is the reason that people have lost confidence. They see the hottest year on record and a Government backsliding on net zero. Is it not the truth that the Conservatives who know and care most about climate change no longer support this Government?
[Source]
-
14 Dec 2023: COP28
12:09
I welcome some of the key outcomes from COP28, including in particular the commitments on renewables and, crucially, a transition away from fossil fuels. That shows that the COP process, however flawed and imperfect, can provide a forcing mechanism for action by Governments. I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Minister’s Department for their hard work. Indeed, by a remarkable coincidence, the breakthrough in the negotiations occurred in the 24 hours when the Minister came home and they were left in charge.
But, for all the advances made, the truth is that the world is still hurtling towards disaster, way off track for keeping 1.5° alive. While we need an over-40% reduction in emissions by 2030, we are currently on track for emissions not to fall but to rise, and a temperature rise of approaching 3°. Even after the agreement, that is the reality, so the question for the world in the run-up to COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil is whether good words at COP28 are finally matched by actions equal to the scale of the emergency.
These will be the defining two years in this decisive decade, which will shape the lives of generations to come, so we need a Government in the UK who will stop congratulating themselves and using the UK’s record as an excuse for future inaction and instead lead at home in a way that is consistent with what we are demanding of others. The Minister complained about a lack of action on coal at the COP, but the Government are opening a new coalmine, watering down emissions targets, seeking to drill every last drop in the North sea and starting a culture war on net zero. That has sent a terrible message to business, investors and other Governments; one that was heard loud and clear by people at the COP.
Let me ask the Minister four questions about the Government’s approach. First, the COP decision says that we need to “transition away from fossil fuels” in line with the science. The science is unequivocal: for us to meet 1.5°, we must leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. He is right that many countries fear that some will seek to use loopholes in the COP agreement to avoid that reality. Our Government are doing precisely that: they say they want to drill every last drop in the North sea. The International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee and the former president of the COP, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), all say that that is incompatible with the science. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries in the next two years that they must leave their fossil fuels in the ground when he wants to extract all of ours?
Secondly, on targets for 2030 and beyond, the COP decision makes it clear that we need not just ambition but policies that will meet those targets. However, the Climate Change Committee says that we are way off track for our 2030 nationally determined contribution. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries to have policies to meet their targets when anyone can see that we are miles off meeting ours?
Thirdly, on finance, I welcome the contribution on loss and damage, but does the Minister recognise the lack of confidence that the Government will meet their promise to provide £11.6 billion of climate finance? Can he explain how he expects to persuade other Governments to keep their promises on finance when people suspect we will not keep ours?
Fourthly and finally, when the Prime Minister spends his time at home describing net zero as a massive burden—which is what he does—how does he remotely expect to persuade others, particularly those in the developing world, that it is a great opportunity? The Prime Minister claimed that nobody at COP raised with him his dither and delay; I suspect that was because he was not there long enough to hear the truth. His U-turns have been incredibly damaging for our country.
The positive outcomes at COP came despite this Government, not because of them. Britain needs a Government who will show climate leadership again—not climate hypocrisy—to cut bills, deliver energy independence, grow our economy and protect future generations. In the next two years more than ever, the world needs climate leadership from Britain. Is the truth not that people at home and abroad have seen enough to know this Government cannot provide the leadership that the world so urgently needs?
[Source]
-
28 Nov 2023: Topical Questions
12:20
The world sorely needs leadership at COP28, but the verdict of our most globally respected climate expert, Lord Stern, earlier this month was damning. He said that the Government’s backsliding on climate action is a “deeply damaging mistake”—damaging for the UK, the world and the future of us all. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to place on record her response to Lord Stern?
[Source]
-
9 Nov 2023: Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower
12:08
I think the Climate Change Committee is actually saying that its most ambitious scenario, which we should be aiming for, is for us to cut the use of gas by 90%. We are going to carry on using North sea oil and gas, but the question for the hon. Gentleman, and for the whole House, is this: do we choose, for the future, to carry on drilling every last drop? That is the Government’s policy, in contravention of all the scientific advice, which is that we will end up in a 3° world—needing billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy to bring about that investment through persuasion, and diverting investment from the private sector. Personally, I do not think that that is the right choice.
Here is the thing, the Bill is not motivated by millions of people lying awake at night, worrying about the cost of living crisis; it is motivated by a Prime Minister lying awake at night, worrying about the Conservative party crisis. The interesting thing is that this Bill was planned well before the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) became Energy Secretary. It is the last desperate throw of the dice by what we might call the No. 10 galaxy brains, to use climate change as what they call a “wedge issue.” They say this to the newspapers all the time. Series 1 of this new strategy was aired in September, when the party of Churchill and Thatcher became the peddlers of wacky conspiracy theories they found on the internet: abolishing the mythical seven bins; ending the imaginary threat of compulsory car sharing; saying no to invented conspiracy theories on 15-minute cities; and fighting the fictional meat tax. And now we have a sequel. No longer a few throw-away conspiracy theories, this is now the central strategy of their legislative programme.
Members should not take my word for it. It is what the Prime Minister’s advisers brief to the papers day after day. One paper I read on Monday reported that the Prime Minister wants to “weaponise climate change” as a wedge issue. Where the British people see an energy crisis forcing up their bills, the Government see a wedge issue. Where the British people ask how they can have liveable towns and cities with good transport, the Government see a wedge issue. Where the British people worry about the effect of the climate crisis on their kids and grandkids, the Government see a wedge issue. The point is that the Government cannot really deny it, because they know this is what they are saying every day. “We think there is a big opportunity for the Conservative party to try to create division on climate change.” That is why the Prime Minister uses words like “eco-zealots.” It is all very transparent. They are locked in the boot of a strategy. Whether they agree with it or not, that is what is happening.
[Source]
12:15
It is not just a retreat from the consensus; it is a retreat from reality. The reality is that there is a global race, with countries seeking to go further and faster to create the jobs of the future. No wonder business is horrified. Just last Monday, Amanda Blanc, the chief executive of Aviva, warned about the Government’s commitment to unlimited oil and gas drilling. She said that our climate goals as a country are “under threat”, which
The Government try to claim that this is somehow consistent with climate leadership. I mean, come off it!
Seven hundred British climate scientists oppose the changes, and so do the International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) quoted:
“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero.”
The Government’s own net zero tsar, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is in his place, also opposes them. They appointed him to advise them on climate and energy. They said how brilliant he is, and I agree—sorry to ruin his career even further. He is a very intelligent guy. [ Interruption. ] He is denying it. He has great ideas, and what did he say?
“There is no such thing as a new net zero oilfield.”
Those are not my words, and they are not the words of eco-zealots or Just Stop Oil; they are the words of the right hon. Gentleman, who sits on the Government Benches. He signed the net zero target into law, for goodness’ sake. We have to grow up.
In contrast to the right hon. Gentleman, we have the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, whom I like — [ Interruption. ] I do. We have worked together on climate, but I will now say something not so nice about him. This is what he said yesterday:
I can tell the Secretary of State and her colleagues that this strategy is doomed to fail. The British people do not want a Government who say, “We are going to weaponise the climate crisis.” They do not want a Government who say, “We are desperate. We are behind in the polls”—I remember that feeling—“and we therefore have to turn this into a wedge issue.” They want a Government who will cut bills and tackle the climate crisis. All the Government are doing day after day with all this nonsense is proving that they are not the answer.
A Labour King’s Speech would legislate to lift the ban on onshore wind, to speed up the planning process and to sort out the grid, so we can decarbonise our power system by 2030. Clean power is the foundation, and next comes energy efficiency. I am afraid that here the Government have utterly failed, and their complacency is extraordinary. This is what the Climate Change Committee said about the whole sector:
[Source]
-
16 Oct 2023: Net Zero by 2050
20:14
The definitive analysis of the recent announcements came last Thursday from the Government’s own watchdog, the Climate Change Committee. It said this:
“The cancellation of some Net Zero measures is likely to increase both energy bills and motoring costs for households”.
When the Secretary of State dumps other targets, I have to ask: who set these targets and then failed to take the action to meet them? The Government did. Laughably, they say that this is about long-term decisions. The biggest long-term cost that the British people face is failure to act at the scale required to tackle the climate crisis. The Secretary of State says again that the Government are on track to meet their 2030 target, but their own watchdog said in June that they were “significantly off track”. It says—this is from last Thursday—that the Government have not offered evidence to back their assurance
Finally, let me say to the Secretary of State that the consensus on net zero has been hard-won over two decades. We have a duty to debate it on the basis of facts, not falsehoods. I have to say to her that it is deeply regrettable that she used her first major public appearance—two weeks ago at her conference—literally to make up complete nonsense about meat taxes, which I notice she did not defend today, and for which frankly she was exposed on national television. I say to her that it demeans her, it demeans her office and it demeans public debate. The Government said that they were going to move on from the premiership of Boris Johnson, but people will be deeply disturbed to find that that appears to mean dumping commitments to net zero and keeping his peculiar relationship to the truth.
[Source]
-
12 Sep 2023: Offshore Wind Contracts
12:35
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the implications for offshore wind of contracts for difference allocation round 5.
[Source]
-
4 Jul 2023: Topical Questions
Six days ago, the Climate Change Committee delivered its most scathing assessment in its history on the Government’s record, saying that they were off track on 41 out of 50 key targets. It said that we have gone “markedly” backwards in the past year, on the Secretary of State’s watch. Who does he blame for this failure?
[Source]
That answer is total complacency from a Secretary of State who has just been proven to be failing on every major aspect of his agenda. That is why Lord Goldsmith resigned. Lord Deben has said he is failing, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has said that we are losing the global race. Is not the truth now that even the Tories do not trust the Tories on the climate crisis?
[Source]
-
9 May 2023: Energy Bill [Lords]
18:25
For us, the central truth that frames this Bill is, as the Secretary of State said in his speech, the energy bills crisis, with bills still double what they were 18 months ago. This crisis demonstrates the urgency of getting off expensive fossil fuels and moving to clean power. Clean power is the route to cheaper bills, energy security, long-term sustainable jobs and tackling the climate emergency. The peril for Britain is the deep uncertainty about whether the Government are doing what is required to make the transition happen with the urgency needed. Let us look at the last couple of months alone. In March the Climate Change Committee stated that the Government are “asleep at the wheel” on their 2035 decarbonisation target. In the same month the National Infrastructure Commission said that
“At the current pace of change, the UK is set to fail to hit its target of decarbonising the power sector”.
The common theme is one we have heard many times about this Government: they act as if this was not the emergency it is. The Bill needs to put that right, so we apply three tests to it: does it represent an all-out sprint for zero-carbon power, the linchpin of a net-zero country; does it provide a proper plan to spread the benefits of cheap, clean power to working families across Britain; and does it provide an industrial policy that means we can win the global race for the jobs of the future? In that context, we will give our support to the Bill, because we welcome many of the measures in it and believe they are long overdue. We have long called for the independent system operator and planner—I will come on to that—as well as the CO 2 licensing regime, because, as the Secretary of State said, carbon capture and storage is important for the future. We welcome measures to support hydrogen, nuclear and action on the grid, and a number of other aspects of what we might call “green plumbing”, which is largely what the Bill is about. We also welcome the improvements made in the other place, for which I thank their lordships. I will come on to those in the course of my speech.
This ban has meant that in the eight years since 2015—the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero was candid about this earlier this year—just three wind farms have been built in the whole of England. Since 2015, we have had five Prime Ministers and just three onshore wind farms. I make that to be three fifths of the wind farm per Prime Minister—that is my great maths. That is quite the record.
Members across the House will have different views on wind farms, but the cost of the ban— [ Interruption. ] The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero is chuntering from a sedentary position, but these are his figures, which he said at Energy questions. According to Carbon Brief, the cost of the ban is more than £5 billion. That is £180 per household because of the expensive gas that we are importing when we could be using onshore wind. In future, failing to achieve the doubling of onshore wind deprives us of another 20 GW of power. Any self-respecting energy Bill would lift that ban. Even the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is sadly no longer in his place, called for the ban to be lifted when he was briefly Energy Secretary—that was not a glorious time, but he got it right when he argued for bringing that position into line with other infrastructure. In December, in a promise made by the Government, the Communities Secretary said that, by the end of April, the ban would be lifted. We have gone beyond the end of April.
[Source]
18:35
If the regime is to work—I concur with the interventions on the Secretary of State—we need a price regulator in Ofgem that supports and never stands in the way of change. I hope that the Secretary of State’s failure to say that he would oppose such an amendment is a good sign, but obviously Ofgem should have a formal net zero duty. I think that was recommended by the net zero tsar, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), and it was rightly inserted by the House of Lords. However—this is boring but very important—we also need to sort out the issues of planning.
The National Infrastructure Commission recently produced an important report about the delays to planning. It said that, in part, that was the fault of Government, who have not updated their energy national policy statements for a decade. It also said that there should be a statutory duty on the Government to review them every five years, and we agree. Here is the other thing that is important: all relevant regulators, including the Planning Inspectorate, should have a net zero duty, because otherwise we will find the system being slowed down and gummed up. Of course, the views of local people are important and must be taken into account, but we must also make progress.
We also believe—this is an important point—that the Bill should remove the 2015 duty to extract every last drop, the so-called maximum economic recovery, from the North sea. I can do no better than to quote the net zero tsar, the right hon. Member for Kingswood, praised by the Secretary of State, who did a very serious piece of work—Government Front Benchers are nodding. What he said could not be clearer:
“developing new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°… There is no such thing as a new net zero oilfield.”
Those are not my words, or those of the Liberal Democrats or any other party in this place. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State starts chuntering, but he should talk to his own net zero tsar, who did a brilliant report that he himself praised.
Here is the other thing, which is a new part of this. We now know how much the Government are having to shell out to the oil and gas industry to persuade it to make this investment, because it is in the detail of the Budget Red Book: over £11 billion. The current Prime Minister, the previous Chancellor, introduced a windfall tax, but then he introduced an absolutely massive super-deduction—not available now to any other industry, including renewables—of over £11 billion. Massive, massive cost to the taxpayer, no impact on bills, the oil from Rosebank exported, and driving a coach and horses through our climate commitments—no wonder the net zero tsar concluded that it is the wrong policy for Britain. It is. Government Members can carry on pretending that business as usual is consistent with the science and consistent with what we go around the world saying, but it is not and the net zero tsar has rightly said so. Labour will seek to improve the Bill so that it delivers on the zero-carbon sprint we need.
[Source]
18:47
One great thing in this House, compared with other countries, is that we have established a cross-party consensus on following the science. But the science could not be clearer. That is why 700 scientists wrote to the newspapers a few weeks ago to say, “This is our view.” That is why the IEA says it. That is why the UN Secretary-General says it. That is why the net zero tsar, when he looked at the evidence, said it. It is not me making it up; it is what the clear evidence is. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will continue to use our existing fields, but to grant new licences and new exploration, defying what all the science tells us, would be a betrayal of future generations. I do not pretend it is easy—I do not—but it is absolutely crystal clear. [Interruption.] They say, “More imports.” No, the answer is to get off fossil fuels and drive towards low carbon.
It is Labour’s view that the Bill is necessary but not sufficient given the scale of challenge and opportunity that we face. We welcome many of its measures, which are long overdue reforms that will make the delivery of net zero easier. On the basis of the common ground that does exist, we will work constructively with the Government. The Bill will be useful to whoever is in government after the next election, but for all its length, the truth is that it is further proof that Britain will require a new Government to do what is truly needed to lower bills, give us energy security, create jobs and show the climate leadership that we need.
[Source]
-
30 Mar 2023: Powering Up Britain
12:46
I thank the Minister for his statement, but let me tell him that although there may have been thousands of pages published this morning, this is not the green day that the Government promised, but a groundhog day of reannouncements, reheated policy and no new investment. The documents are most notable for their glaring omissions: there is no removal of the onshore wind ban that is costing families hundreds of pounds on bills a year. There is no new money for energy efficiency to insulate homes and cut bills, just a reannouncement of a feeble offer made last year. There is no net zero mandate for Ofgem, as recommended by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore)—to whom I too pay tribute—and as demanded by industry. There is no proper response to the Inflation Reduction Act, even as the rest of the world speeds ahead.
The biggest indictment of all, buried in the fine print and not mentioned by the Minister, is the admission that the policies announced today do not deliver the promise, solemnly made in front of the world at COP26 in Glasgow barely a year ago, to meet the UK’s 2030 climate target. The Government waited until noon, five hours after all the other documents were published, to release the carbon budget delivery plan—which is more like the failure to deliver the carbon budget plan. This is what it says:
Secondly, there is no new investment in hydrogen. Germany is investing €9 billion in hydrogen, compared with £240 million from the UK. Does the Minister recognise the failure of ambition? Thirdly, it is good that the Government have finally allocated some resources to CCS, although I am old enough to remember the £1 billion CCS competition announced in 2008, 15 years ago, which they cancelled. However, they still appear to have no clue where the up to £20 billion of support is coming from, and it was not in the Budget documents. Can the Minister clear that up?
Fourthly, on the response to the Inflation Reduction Act, British businesses are crying out for action now, yet the Minister’s own documents published today show that the UK is investing less than France and less than Germany, and once the Inflation Reduction Act kicks in, we will be investing less than the USA. Is that not a clear admission that we are falling behind? Finally, can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that as I said, the Government’s 2030 target announced at COP26 will not be met by these policies, and can he tell us how the UK can possibly claim the mantle of delivering on climate leadership when it is way off track to deliver the promise it made at the COP we hosted?
At the same time, the Government pursue their “every last drop” strategy on oil and gas. Let me tell the House what that means: it means funnelling £11.4 billion to the oil and gas companies making record profits, and ignoring what 700 leading scientists told the Government yesterday, which is that new exploration will not cut bills, will not deliver energy security and will severely undermine UK climate leadership. [ Interruption. ] I think the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) should listen to the scientists.
[Source]
-
21 Mar 2023: Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
15:09
Let us talk about the third part of the Budget, because it does not just have the wrong priorities for now, but for the future too. I want to come on to the energy transformation that the country needs. If we want to get energy bills down, there is a simple answer: going all in on a green energy sprint. We know that wind and solar are many times cheaper than fossil fuels, but the problem is that we have a Government who do not get it. The Levelling Up Secretary is a case in point. When he should be blocking coalmines he waves them through, as he has done in Cumbria. By the way, it will interest the House to know that he said it is carbon neutral, good for the climate and good for the environment. People may wonder. We have been going around the world lecturing people about getting off coal, so how have we suddenly got a coalmine that is good for the environment? Well, the answer is that in the calculations he made, he does not count the burning of the coal, just the mining of it. That is like saying tobacco does not damage your health if you do not take into account the smoking of it. He can correct me if I am wrong, but that is correct, isn’t it? Yes, it is correct.
[Source]
-
29 Nov 2022: Energy Security
13:04
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and can I take the opportunity to welcome him to his new role? We support new nuclear, and I welcome the announcement on Sizewell. The Climate Change Committee tells us that nuclear should play a role as part of the balanced pathway to net zero. In his reply, could he tell us the timetable for Sizewell’s final investment decision and when we expect it to be up and running? I also welcome the return of the delayed Energy Bill, which should never have been paused by the Government.
We have seen five Energy Secretaries since 2019. To overcome the bills crisis we face and to tackle the climate crisis, we need ambition, consistency and going all in on the green energy sprint. I am afraid we have not had these things from this Government. All we have had is inconsistency, dithering and a Government looking over their shoulder at their own Back Benchers. The Secretary of State has a lot of work to do to convince the country that that is going to change, and if he does not, it means that this Government will land us with higher bills and more energy insecurity, and will fail to take the leadership we need in tackling the climate crisis.
[Source]
-
21 Nov 2022: COP27
15:46
May I start by echoing the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah? The Government must ensure that his case is not forgotten. He must be released. I also pay tribute to the COP26 President for his service and to his team of civil servants in the COP unit.
Despite the welcome progress at COP27 on support for climate-vulnerable countries, which I acknowledge, we should be clear: on the crucial issue of 1.5°, this summit failed. The planet is hotter than it has been for 125,000 years. We already see the disastrous effects of 1° of warming, but rather than tackle this crisis, too many leaders are fiddling while the world burns. As a result, we are currently on track, according to the UN, for a catastrophic 2.8° of warming. We should tell the truth: unless we do something different and fast, we will leave a terrible legacy. Against this backdrop, no country can be patting itself on the back. As a country that considers itself a climate leader, we have a responsibility and opportunity to set the pace in the year ahead, and our moral authority in the negotiations depends on it.
Secondly, we need to acknowledge the elephant in the room: fossil fuel. The COP26 President argued, unsuccessfully, that the conclusions of COP27 should include the phasing out of fossil fuel. If we extract all remaining reserves, we will blow way past 1.5° to 3° and more, but the Government are indulging at home in a dash for new fossil fuel licences, which will not even make a difference to bills, and they refuse to rule out a new coalmine in Cumbria. What kind of leadership is it if we tell others not to have new fossil fuel exploration while saying it is okay for us to do it here at home?
Thirdly, we need to demonstrate to the world that climate leadership means we will not only set stretching targets but meet them, yet the Climate Change Committee says we are off track and our net zero strategy has been found to be unlawful. What will the Government do to put that right?
[Source]
-
2 Nov 2022: Net Zero Strategy and Carbon Budgets
11:45
I pay tribute to the work of the COP26 President, and I am sorry he has been removed from the Government. Let me take this first opportunity at the Dispatch Box to congratulate the Minister on bringing down the last Government in the vote on fracking.
[Source]
11:48
It is a mad world when the new Government make the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) look like an eco-warrior, and he was in favour of lifting the ban. This is just one example of their failure. We are way off track from meeting our climate targets, the net zero strategy was ruled unlawful, the PM sacks the COP President and all this when the UN is telling us we are heading for 2.8 °C of global warming. Is not the truth that this year began with a Prime Minister who made grand promises that have not been fulfilled, and it ends with one who has to be dragged kicking and screaming even to turn up?
[Source]
-
24 Oct 2022: Doncaster Sheffield Airport
I am going to end my remarks, because other Members want to speak, by appealing to the Minister—I know her from another life when she was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the COP26 President, which she did very well and we had a good relationship—that courtesy and commitment demand that we get around the table with the South Yorkshire Mayor and with Members of Parliament to leave no stone unturned. Maybe we will not succeed, but let us try to work together on this. Time is incredibly short, and we owe it to all the workers and to the community to fight all the way until our options have run out. Responsibility lies with Peel, and I appeal to Peel to do the right thing, but I also appeal to the Government to get around the table with us and see whether there is a way forward.
[Source]
-
19 Oct 2022: Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill
16:19
Now let me go through the substantive arguments against fracking. There are four key questions for the House and the country. Will fracking make a difference to the price of energy? The answer is no. Is there categorical evidence that it is safe? The answer is no. Is it consistent with any remotely serious response to the climate crisis? The answer is no. Crucially, do people want it? The answer is no.
[Source]
16:18
The Climate Change Committee says the same. Even the founder of Cuadrilla, Chris Cornelius, says:
[Source]
16:25
The hon. Lady makes her point well and anticipates the issues that I will come on to. Fracking will not make a difference to bills, we cannot be assured of its safety, and it is a disastrous response to the climate crisis.
[Source]
16:25
The decision on fracking is potentially environmentally damaging, with emissions from fracking up to 50% higher than those from conventional gas. If every country follows the lead that the Business Secretary suggests by extracting every last drop of their fossil fuel reserves, global temperatures will rise by more than 3° C, which will spell catastrophe for our children and grandchildren. That should be patently obvious to anyone, not least the person in charge of fighting the climate crisis.
[Source]
-
17 Oct 2022: Energy Prices Bill
“I can assure Guardian readers that I am not a ‘green energy sceptic’.”
Let him prove it. He is for fracking, which will not lower bills and is dangerous. His colleague, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is seeking to block solar energy worth 34 GW—the equivalent of 10 nuclear power stations. That is not some whim of the DEFRA Secretary, but an instruction from the Prime Minister, who said that she does not like the look of solar panels. If the Business Secretary wants to convince people that he understands the stakes and what is necessary to get out of this crisis, he needs to make a proper sprint for green energy.
[Source]
-
9 Sep 2022: Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen
14:09
Thirdly, I want to say something about her sense of humour. I go back to a time in 2008, when I had recently been appointed as Secretary of State for Climate Change and I went to my first ever Privy Council meeting. Her Majesty was reading out laws that were being passed. As she did so, she paused for a moment, because she was having trouble reading, and she said, “Yes, it’s these new long-life lightbulbs that we have introduced.” She fixed me with a beady gaze and a twinkle in her eye, and I smiled. That was the sense of humour that she showed.
Her Majesty was an extraordinary monarch, but I also want to say a word about King Charles III. Again, I speak on behalf of my constituents. He has been an extraordinary warrior on the issue of the environment, long before it was fashionable. When I was Climate Change Secretary, I always thought of him as an extraordinary national asset on the issue, and he remains so. But he is not just a fighter for big causes; he is also someone—he has inherited this from his mother—of extraordinary kindness, generosity and compassion. We see it in his work to heal social divisions in our country, but I have also seen it in my constituency, which was hit by floods in 2007 and 2019. On both occasions, including on the first, when part of my constituency was still under water, he came to see my constituents, to talk to them and to be with them—including, on the second occasion, just before Christmas—because he knew that his presence, at that time of anguish, grief and anxiety, would make an enormous difference to my constituents, and indeed it did.
[Source]
-
8 Sep 2022: UK Energy Costs
13:13
“if you want to deal with climate change and you want to deal with the cost of living crisis and oil and gas prices, you have to do the same things. Renewable energy and energy efficiency, they are the answers.”
This is where I come to the Business Secretary, whom I congratulate. He and I have known each other a long time and we have had a good personal relationship—perhaps we can form an unlikely alliance on the issues that we face. I want to make a serious point to him about some of what he has said in the past, because it relates to these issues. He has said a number of things about climate. I have been part of the work done on building a cross-party consensus on climate for getting on for 20 years in this House, and we have to look at some of what he has said about climate. He has questioned the modelling and whether there is anything we can do about the climate crisis. In 2017, he said:
He went on to say that the cost of climate action is “probably unaffordable”. I quote those words because this is flirtation with climate denial. Never in the past 20 years have we heard these words from someone in charge of tackling the climate crisis, and we should not normalise it. The bipartisan consensus on climate change has been hard won. We have worked across parties over two decades to secure it and there is a heavy responsibility on the Business Secretary to be part of maintaining that consensus, not destroying it.
The problem for the Business Secretary, and the reason he faces that challenge, is that this problem is not just about the climate crisis, because not taking action on green energy is a recipe for higher bills. The ban on onshore wind is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. The blocking of solar, which the Prime Minister supports, is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. The refusal to act on energy efficiency is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. There is nothing more anti-business than scaring off investors in renewables with climate denial.
In conclusion, here is the truth about this new Government, only two days in. They have revealed their true colours. We face a social and economic emergency. In such an emergency, what matters is who you stand up for, who shoulders the burden and the choices you make. The Government have chosen to stand up for the oil and gas companies, not the British people, who will pay for this action in the long-term. The Government cannot answer the challenges of energy security. They cannot answer the challenges of energy bills. They cannot answer the challenges of the climate crisis. And they have the wrong priorities for Britain.
[Source]
-
20 Jul 2022: COP26 Outcomes
11:37
In the last two days, we have seen that the climate emergency is here and now, with wildfires raging across our country, tracks and runways melting, schools closing and the government under-prepared, and yet some people aspiring to the highest office in the land have suggested that tackling the climate crisis is a luxury that can be delayed—an indulgence, a niche project. Such people would put the safety of our citizens at risk. They are deeply irresponsible and they are economically illiterate. Does the President of COP26 agree that, given the demonstrable threat that we so obviously face, there is no place in serious political parties for such dangerous folly?
[Source]
11:38
The President of COP26 was so appalled by his own party’s leadership contest that he threatened to resign, and it is no wonder. He says that all the candidates are committed to the net zero agenda, but only this morning the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), the frontrunner in the leadership race, said that he would double down on the onshore wind ban because of the “distress and disruption” that onshore wind causes.
What is causing distress is the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. What is causing disruption is the most extreme weather in our country’s history. Onshore wind is a vital tool in tackling these crises, but the bizarre state of the Tory party means that the former Chancellor panders to the fanatics and sides with the sceptics. Will the President of COP26 now repudiate that position and condemn it for the dangerous nonsense that it is?
[Source]
-
15 Jun 2022: Fossil Fuel Industry
11:38
It has been reported that the COP26 President is in the running to become the executive secretary of climate at the UN. I wish him well, because he would do an excellent job in that post. Part of the reason he won respect at COP26 was for his commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, yet here at home the Chancellor has created a massive loophole in the windfall tax to give away at least £4 billion of public money in new incentives for new oil and gas projects. Can the COP26 President tell us whether he was consulted on that plan? How much does he estimate that it will drive up emissions? Is it not totally at odds with the agreement on fossil fuels that he worked so hard to secure in Glasgow?
[Source]
11:39
Maybe the COP26 President has one eye on the UN, because that did not sound like a wholehearted endorsement of the Chancellor’s policy, and he is right to think that the Chancellor’s policy does not make any sense. The money will either go to oil and gas projects that would have happened anyway, or incentivise new projects that will make no difference to consumer bills, take years to come to fruition and drive a coach and horses through our climate commitments. What is more, this policy excludes investments in renewables, which are the quickest, cheapest and cleanest form of power. Does that not reveal the truth that on climate, he says one thing on the world stage and the rest of the Government do another here at home? Is it not totally understandable that he wants to jump off the sinking ship?
[Source]
-
20 Apr 2022: Tackling Climate Change
11:49
The recent climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was deeply worrying, saying that current global policies will lead to warming of more than 3°, but it also offered hope in the dramatic fall in the price of renewables, which means they are now the right choice for cheap energy and to tackle the climate crisis. Given that onshore wind is the cheapest, cleanest, quickest form of power to deliver and is also supported by a large majority of the public in the UK, will the COP26 President explain why the Government persist—including in their recent strategy—with planning policies that in effect block onshore wind in England?
[Source]
11:50
The COP26 President knows that the Prime Minister caved in to those who wanted to block onshore wind—and I think the Minister for Energy knows it too.
Let us try another. To tackle the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, energy efficiency measures are a no-brainer, but the Chancellor steadfastly refused to offer a penny more for energy efficiency in the recent strategy, meaning higher bills for people and more people in fuel poverty. The COP26 President is responsible for holding Departments to account for net zero; is it not time for him to wield some presidential power, knock heads together and sort this problem out?
[Source]
-
19 Apr 2022: Energy Security Strategy
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but I have to tell him that after all the hype and all the promises, his energy relaunch fails to live up remotely to the scale of the crisis that families are facing. The Government have already failed to deliver the immediate measures needed to help millions of families with their energy bills this year, and they now have an energy security strategy that has rejected the measures that could have made the most difference in the years ahead. It fails to seize the moment on the two most elementary tests of any decent green energy sprint—that is, going all-in on the cheapest forms of home-grown power, such as onshore wind, which, remarkably, was not even mentioned in his statement, and finally delivering on the biggest no-brainer when it comes to an energy strategy: energy efficiency.
Why? Because the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister caved in to Back Benchers who dislike green energy and a Chancellor who refuses to make the green investments that the country needs. They cannot deliver a green energy sprint because they face both ways on green energy and simply will not make the public investment that we need.
Of course, the North sea has a role to play in the transition, but will the Secretary of State explain how maximising North sea oil and gas is consistent with all the advice from the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on limiting global warming to 1.5°?
In conclusion, the truth is that this cobbled-together energy relaunch does nothing on the cost of living and fails to deliver the green sprint that we needed. When it comes to the solutions to energy security, energy bills and the climate crisis, the Secretary of State has shown once again that the Government cannot deliver what the national interest demands.
[Source]
-
15 Mar 2022: Shale Gas Production
12:41
I will ask some questions, because this issue does matter. It is about our energy security, it is about communities that are deeply worried about the impact of fracking, and it is about the climate crisis. Has the Minister or his Department seen any scientific evidence since the 2019 moratorium that suggests fracking might not be dangerous and might be safe? If he does not have any evidence, why is he approaching the Oil and Gas Authority to ask it not to concrete over the wells, which was the original decision? If he does not think fracking is safe, why is he sowing uncertainty in communities across our country? If he does not have any evidence, will he assure the House that no review of fracking—no nods, no winks and no nudges—will be announced in the relaunch of the Government’s energy strategy? Clarity on this matters.
Finally, would it not be the best thing that the Government can do to guarantee energy security—the Minister should be clear about this—to have a green energy sprint by ending the onshore wind moratorium, ending the objection to solar power, embracing tidal power, moving forward with nuclear and having a properly funded national energy efficiency programme?
[Source]
-
2 Mar 2022: COP26 Presidency: Priorities
11:54
An essential part of becoming less dependent on fossil fuels is reducing our demand for gas by making more progress on energy efficiency. On its own, insulating the 18 million draughty homes in our country would cut our imports of gas by 15%—double the amount we import from Russia. In his role holding Departments to account on net zero, will the COP26 President now persuade Treasury and other colleagues that it is time to finally get serious and invest at scale in the national programme to upgrade Britain’s homes, which Labour has long called for?
[Source]
-
21 Feb 2022: Storm Eunice
18:03
Fourthly, these events raise longer-term issues. Scientists tell us that we cannot necessarily attribute the ferocity of Storm Eunice to climate change, but we know that we face more intense and frequent extreme weather as a result of the climate crisis, so again it throws up the question of our resilience and security as a country.
After the storms in 2013, there was a clear sense of the vulnerabilities of the overhead power network and agreement that the energy networks would act. In its interim report on Storm Arwen this month, Ofgem said again that it will review the costs and benefits of the resilience of overhead lines, and the Climate Change Committee has highlighted climate risks to the power system. Does the Secretary of State agree that events this winter demonstrate the need to give greater priority to and, indeed, investment in the resilience of our power network?
More generally, the Climate Change Committee said in its five-year progress report last summer that adaptation is
[Source]
-
19 Jan 2022: Paris Agreement Temperature Goal
Two months on from the COP, there is a worrying lack of momentum in this pivotal year, and it could get worse if we learn the wrong lessons from the energy crisis. Does the COP President agree that the lesson is not that, as some in his party would say, we are moving too fast on green energy, but the opposite: we are moving too slowly and our dependence on fossil fuels leaves us vulnerable? The only way, therefore, to keep 1.5 alive and provide energy security is to go further and faster on the climate transition.
[Source]
Consumers looking at their energy bills will ask, “If it is going so well, why are our bills rocketing and why are we so vulnerable?” We can keep 1.5 alive only if we have an energy policy that is fair at home and abroad. Many of the fossil fuel companies have made billions as a result of soaring prices, yet the Government say we should not tax them further because they are struggling. Is not the truth that we are only ever going to meet the Paris agreement if we stand up to vested interests, including the oil and gas companies, and that the fair and right approach is a windfall tax to help with the real struggles faced by the British people?
[Source]
-
11 Jan 2022: Household Energy Bills: VAT
16:25
“allowed unfit and unsustainable energy companies to trade with little penalty.”
Let me get to the heart of this debate, and I say this to the anti-net zero tendency in the Conservative party. We can reach two different views. Some Conservative Members say that it is because we have gone too fast on the green transition. I say that they are dead wrong; it is because we have gone too slowly. It is continued dependence on fossil fuels that makes us more vulnerable and less resilient. Let us take energy efficiency. A 2014 study showed that a comprehensive programme of energy efficiency could cut gas imports by a quarter, but what have we seen? We have seen the abolition of the zero carbon home standard, the fiasco of the green deal and the fiasco of the green homes grant. That is why emissions from buildings are now as high today as they were in 2015, and it is not just about energy efficiency. Before this debate, I looked up the number of onshore wind turbines being constructed each year in the past four years—it is because I am a nerd. I will not do a guessing game in the House as I do not have the time. The answer is that just four turbines a year were granted planning permission in the past four years. It makes no sense, because onshore wind is the cheapest power at our disposal—so much for being the Saudi Arabia of wind power; it is just hot air.
Short-term action is essential, but we need long-term action as well. There is a very big difference we could make to families, and that is a national mission to retrofit homes in this country. It is the closest thing there is to a no-brainer with regard to energy policy. We could cut bills by up to £400. We could make ourselves much less dependent on volatile fossil fuels. That is why we put forward a plan for a £6 billion a year retrofit and zero-carbon energy programme to insulate 19 million badly insulated homes. But the Government refuse to act. They offer piecemeal privatised programmes that do not work, and they are still short of their very inadequate manifesto promise on this. We can get a sense of where the Government stand. When they had the fiasco of the green homes grant—I do not blame them for thinking it was not going very well—they did not plough the money saved back into retrofit but simply cut £1.5 billion of investment. We need to go faster on energy efficiency. We need to invest in our ports and grid so that we can meet and exceed 40 GW of offshore wind. We need to end the effective moratorium on onshore wind, embrace tidal power and other forms of renewable energy, drive forward our nuclear programme and invest in clean energy storage.
[Source]
-
6 Dec 2021: Storm Arwen: Power Outages
15:41
The climate crisis means that we will face many more such events. The Government must get a grip. Instead of a cosy Government-led process, overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem, will the Minister now establish what the situation demands—a proper independent inquiry into the performance and failures of power companies, regulators and the Government to ensure that our country and communities are never left that vulnerable again?
[Source]
-
1 Dec 2021: Storm Arwen
12:43
Faced with the climate crisis, extreme weather events will sadly become all the more common in future. We cannot be this vulnerable in future. There is real concern that some lessons have not been learned, and on this occasion we must face up to those lessons and learn them.
[Source]
-
1 Dec 2021: Outcome of COP26
11:43
Let me take two other issues where he can show leadership: the Cumbria coalmine, and the Cambo oilfield, which are the equivalent of 18 coal-fired power stations running for a year. He knows that we need to get others to phase out coal, and that we need to phase out fossil fuels. Surely the right way to send a proper signal to the rest of the world ahead of COP27, is for the whole Government to start practising what he is effectively preaching, and put a stop to Cambo and Cumbria.
[Source]
-
16 Nov 2021: Topical Questions
12:18
I join the Secretary of State in commending the COP26 President on the progress made at COP26, but we know much greater action is required, and it is the Secretary of State’s job to ensure that every part of our Government acts. There is an immediate test with the UK-Australia trade deal: yesterday, the Australian Government reaffirmed their 2030 target, which is consistent only with 4° of warming, and there are reports that our Government have allowed the watering down of temperature targets in that deal. Surely, if we are serious after Glasgow about not letting big emitters off the hook, the deal must be rewritten to enshrine in it a proper plan for Australia as well as the UK, including for 2030, to keep 1.5° alive.
[Source]
12:18
It is time for the Government not only to talk tough, but to act tough, because we must put pressure on countries such as Australia. There is a clear pattern of behaviour here on climate. Too often, this Government face both ways: the Cumbria coal mine, the Cambo oilfield, cutting overseas aid for the most vulnerable countries, cutting air passenger duty for domestic flights and failing to invest in green recovery at home. He is the man supposed to be in charge of ensuring the Government speak with one voice. Why does he think he is failing to do so? Is that the reason why people are calling for the COP26 President to take back control of energy and climate change?
[Source]
-
28 Oct 2021: Income Tax (Charge)
12:09
The hon. Lady is completely right about that. She anticipates my next point brilliantly; it is a useful segue. If we want to understand why growth is so anaemic, she is right that we need look no further than the Chancellor’s failure to seize the opportunities for green growth. This is an important point: the prudent and responsible economic call—I suspect the Business Secretary agrees—for economic growth is to invest at scale in the transition to a zero-carbon economy. Let us be honest, it is now a completely open secret that the problem is that the Chancellor is not a believer, and it showed yesterday. As we prepare to host the most important international summit ever on climate change, as delegates gather from all around the world, and as the eyes are on Britain, what did he unveil as his flagship measure yesterday? To cut air passenger duty for domestic flights. You literally could not make it up. People want good and affordable rail services, but the plan for rail seems to have been postponed again, and instead there will be 400,000 more domestic flights as a result of that decision. Once again, that shows that the Treasury is not signed up to the agenda.
to net zero—
“remain significant and their apportionment between businesses, households, and government…remains largely unclear. This leaves the costs associated with the transition to net zero as a major source of longer-term fiscal risk.”
[Source]
12:12
As I was saying, not acting increases the cost, so the prudent responsible choice is to invest. I will mention some key sectors, because again, there has been a deafening silence. I come back to the steel industry, which is such a litmus test. It needs about £6 billion of investment to get to net zero by 2035. The view is shared on both sides of the House that it needs to get to net zero and that it is a foundational industry that we need and that is incredibly important to communities across the country. There are 20 demonstration projects around Europe but none here at the moment. It requires a partnership of the public and private sectors and needs both sides to invest. There is a crucial role for the Government in that.
[Source]
12:17
On green investment, a philosophical difference is emerging. I worry that the Government will increasingly leave individuals and industries on their own to face the costs. I do not think that is true of the whole of Government, but the Treasury remains a fundamental block to the green investment that we need. There was a whole saga about its net zero review and the fact that it emphasises short-term costs rather than long-term gains. Frankly, that is a big problem for our country.
[Source]
12:18
Labour would deliver a climate investment pledge of £28 billion extra every year for the rest of the decade. That is an investment in bringing down energy bills; delivering affordable public transport and cleaner air; and backing British industries with a real plan for jobs and wages. That is what real action on the climate emergency and industrial strategy looks like.
[Source]
-
27 Oct 2021: Engagements
We all need the vital COP26 summit in Glasgow to deliver next week, because failing to limit global warming to 1.5° will have devastating consequences for our planet. That goal is shared across the House. Does the Prime Minister agree that, to keep the goal of 1.5° alive, we need to roughly halve global emissions in this decisive decade?
[Source]
12:05
I applaud the efforts of the UK presidency under the COP26 President-designate, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). However, I want to direct the Prime Minister’s attention to the issue of this decade. I will come to net zero targets for the middle of the century in a moment, but yesterday he will know that a very important report came out from the United Nations, the United Nations Environment Programme “Emissions Gap” report. On the eve of COP, it warned that far from halving global emissions this decade, we are on course to reduce them by only about 7.5%. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge, because this is crucial for what happens at Glasgow and after Glasgow, how far away we are from the action required in this 10-year period?
[Source]
I will just correct the Prime Minister on one point: it was the second half of the century that was set out in Paris, not 2100 for net zero. Here is the problem on the question of net zero targets for the middle of the century: it is easy to make promises for 30 years’ time; it is much more difficult to act now. Australia recently announced a 2050 net zero target, but its 2030 target would head the world towards approximately 4° of global warming. Can I urge him not to shift the goalposts when it comes to Glasgow? It is about the emergency we face this decade. It is about the nationally determined contributions this decade. Please keep the focus on 2030, not 2050 and beyond.
[Source]
Let me tell the Prime Minister that what this summit needs is statesmanship, not partisanship, which is what we have just heard from him. He should not be trying to score party political points on such an important issue facing our country and our world. That is never the way I did PMQs. [ Laughter. ] Let me ask him about the crucial issue of climate finance for developing countries. The reason the Paris summit succeeded was that there was a coalition of vulnerable countries and developed countries that put pressure on all the big emitters, including China and India. The problem is that the world has not delivered on the $100 billion of finance promised more than a decade ago in Copenhagen. The plan is to deliver it maybe in 2023. But I want to ask him about his actions. Has it not made it much harder to deliver on that promise that we are the only G7 country to cut the aid budget in the run-up to this crucial summit?
[Source]
12:11
It is one thing for the Prime Minister not to know what is in the Paris agreement, but another for him not to know what is in his own Budget. He has cut the aid budget; of course he has cut the aid budget. He has abandoned the bipartisan belief in the aid budget across both these Houses, but it is not just on aid where the Government face both ways. They have a trade deal with Australia where they have allowed the Australians to drop their temperature commitments. They are telling others to power past coal while flirting with a new coal mine, and they are saying that we have to move beyond fossil fuels but open the new Cambo oilfield. Is not the truth that the Prime Minister has undermined his own COP presidency by saying one thing and doing another?
[Source]
12:13
The thing the Prime Minister has underestimated throughout these last two years is the fact that COP26 is not a glorified photo opportunity; it is a fragile and complex negotiation. The problem is that the Prime Minister’s boosterism will not cut carbon emissions in half. Photo opportunities will not cut carbon emissions in half. I say to the Prime Minister that in these final days before COP26, we need more than warm words. Above all, Glasgow has to be a summit of climate delivery, not climate delay.
[Source]
-
20 Oct 2021: Progress on Limiting Global Heating
11:41
With 10 days to go before COP, much is riding on the shoulders of the COP26 President and we wish him well, but to deliver the 1.5° target we have to cut emissions by 28 billion tonnes by 2030—a halving of global emissions. So far, the pledges made for Glasgow amount to 4 billion tonnes at most, so we are not yet where we want to be. Does the COP26 President agree that we need to be honest about the maths? If he does, what is his assessment of how much of the gap we can close at Glasgow to keep 1.5° alive?
[Source]
11:42
May I suggest to the COP26 President that the rest of the UK Government could make a difference, even in these final days, by not undermining his work? The Secretary of State for International Trade should not be giving big emitters a free pass by doing a deal with Australia that allows them to drop their temperature commitments; the Prime Minister should deliver on the promise made at the G7 to vaccinate the developing world by the end of 2022; and the Treasury should stop undermining the green transition at home and help to build the international coalition that we need by reversing the cut to overseas aid in the Budget. Does the COP26 President agree that acting on those suggestions would help him to deliver on his historic responsibility at the COP?
[Source]
-
19 Oct 2021: Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy
12:47
Let me start by saying that it is good that tackling the climate crisis is a shared national objective across the House, and that we want the Government to succeed at COP26 in just ten days’ time. However, there are two central questions about the strategy that has been published today: does it finally close the yawning gap between Government promises and delivery, and will it make the public investment which is essential to ensure that the green transition is fair and creates jobs? I am afraid that the answer to both questions, despite what the Minister said, is no. The plan falls short on delivery, and while there is modest short-term investment, there is nothing like the commitment that we believe is required—and we know why. When asked at the weekend about the Treasury’s approach to these issues, a source from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said:
“They are not climate change deniers but they are emphasising the short-term risks, rather than long-term needs”.
According to the Government’s own target, we need 600,000 homes a year to be installing heat pumps by 2028, but the Government are funding just 30,000 a year, helping just one in 250 households on the gas grid. Why does the Minister’s plan on heat pumps fall so far short of what is required? As for transport, we agree with the transition to electric cars—and I support and welcome the zero emissions mandate—but we need to make it fair to consumers. We should at the very least have had long-term zero-interest loans to cut the costs of purchasing electric cars. What is the plan to make them accessible to all, and not just the richest? Will the Minister tell us that in his reply? On nuclear, I was surprised, given the advance publicity, that the word did not even cross the Minister’s lips. We have seen a decade of inaction and delay on this issue, so can he tell us why there is still no decision on new nuclear?
The failure to invest affects not just whether this transition is fair for consumers but workers in existing industries. Take steel: it will cost £6 billion for the steel industry to get to net zero over the next 15 years. If we want a steel industry—as we do across the House—we will need to share the costs with the private sector. However, there is nothing for steel in this document, and a £250 million clean steel fund some way down the road will not cut it. Can he give us his estimates of the needs of the steel industry and how he thinks they can be met?
Finally, it was noticeable that the Minister did not say that the plan would meet the target for the 2035 sixth carbon budget, but surely that is a basic prerequisite of the strategy to 2050. At less than halfway to net zero, do the policies in this document meet the target, or fall short of it? Despite hundreds of pages of plans, strategies and hot air, there is still a chasm between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality? My fear is that the plan will not deliver the fair, prosperous transition that we need and that is equal to the scale of the emergency we face.
[Source]
-
20 Sep 2021: UK Gas Market
15:47
Our new nuclear programme is stalled, and while the Secretary of State is right that we have made progress on renewables, the truth is that we need to go further and faster, with a more diverse supply. Above all, there is not yet enough of a clear plan from Government for how we meet net zero with affordability and security. People have read what the Climate Change Committee said in its most recent progress report this summer:
I therefore urge the Secretary of State in the midst of this crisis to use this autumn’s net zero strategy—delayed—the net zero review, also delayed, and the comprehensive spending review to finally put in place a proper plan. Households, businesses and energy suppliers are looking to the Government for support and direction as we face this crisis; it requires not words but action and delivery. It is long past time for Government to get a grip.
[Source]
-
14 Jul 2021: Topical Questions
11:55
The Copenhagen summit of 2009 was undone by deep mistrust of the developed world by developing countries. Rather than learning from that, rich countries are still failing to deliver on the promised $100 billion of climate finance and the billions of vaccine doses still required by poorer countries. Yesterday, shamefully, the Prime Minister decided to press ahead with the cut in our aid spending. When the COP26 President went to see the PM yesterday, did he explain that COP26 is not some international photo opportunity, but a complex and fragile negotiation, and that the aid cut simply deepens mistrust, damages our moral standing and undermines our COP presidency?
[Source]
11:56
The COP26 President knows that world leaders and others are asking him why the UK is the only G7 country cutting aid spending in the year that we are hosting the COP. He knows that delivering support to developing countries is not just morally right, but essential to building a coalition to pressure the world’s largest emitters.
The most significant of those emitters is China. To have a chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°, we need China to ensure that its emissions peak and start to decline by 2025 at the latest. Does the COP26 President agree? If so, can he tell us what the Prime Minister is doing to engage directly with China on the issue and persuade it to step up?
[Source]
-
6 Jul 2021: Topical Questions
00:05
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said earlier, the Climate Change Committee’s report card on the Government two weeks ago was devastating:
The Climate Change Committee says that
[Source]
I think that is what we call the “dog ate my homework” excuse, and this is where the problem lies. When it comes to investment in a green recovery, the UK Government’s plans per head of population are less than a third of Germany, a quarter of France and just 6% of the US. That is why the Climate Change Committee says that we are just one fifth of the way to meeting our targets in terms of policy. Is it not the truth that, because the Government are not matching their grand rhetoric with public investment at scale, they are failing to tackle the biggest long-term threat our country faces?
[Source]
-
9 Jun 2021: Topical Questions
11:55
For a successful COP26, we have a particular responsibility as hosts to build trust with developing countries. The Government’s decision to cut aid spending—the only G7 country to do so—is therefore an appalling one, not just because it is wrong in principle, but because it is staggeringly self-defeating. The COP26 President knows that that decision makes a successful outcome at the conference of the parties harder, not easier, so may I invite him to add his voice to the powerful calls we heard yesterday, including from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to immediately restore Government aid spending to 0.7% of GDP?
[Source]
11:56
The problem is that cutting aid spending severely undermines the ability of developing countries to tackle the challenges of climate poverty and public health. The COP26 President knows that: it is what developing countries are telling him in the negotiations. We need vulnerable countries to be calling for more ambition from big emitters such as China, but they will be much more reticent in doing so when they do not feel that we can be trusted.
Totemic on the issue of trust is the promise made at Copenhagen for $100 billion of public and private finance for developing countries. More than a decade on, it still has not been delivered. It is our job as hosts to deliver on that promise. Can the COP26 President therefore tell us whether the $100 billion will finally be delivered this weekend at the G7 meeting?
[Source]
-
7 Jun 2021: Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
21:04
These are our issues with the Bill, but we cannot ignore in this Third Reading debate the Bill’s wider context, about which I want to speak briefly. ARIA is an important innovation, but it cannot be detached from the wider landscape of Government policy. Today’s amendment on overseas development aid—new clause 4—may not have been selected, but the argument is not going away. We should not be slashing overseas aid to the world’s poorest people. It is not right morally, and it is not right on grounds of self-interest either. With coronavirus and the climate crisis, our fates are bound together.
All this is in the year of COP26, when we are the hosts trying to persuade other countries to accept our moral authority on the climate crisis and development.
As someone who was at the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit of 2009, I want to tell the House that mistrust between developing and developed countries was the biggest reason it failed and is one of the biggest risks at COP26. The cut in aid spending undermines our efforts and undermines trust; the Government are wrong to be doing it, and it is self-defeating for our country. There is a very strong feeling about this across the House—quite possibly a majority—and the Government should reverse this cut in funding forthwith. My general experience is that when there is a majority in this House for something, it will find a way to express itself one way or the other. I suggest that the Secretary of State and the Government take heed.
[Source]
-
18 May 2021: 10-point Plan: Six Months On
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The climate crisis is the single greatest long-term challenge we face. As Secretary of State, I was proud to pass the world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 with cross-party support. In that spirit, although we believe that the UK should be going further and faster, we also recognise that our targets for 2030 and 2035 are ambitious by international standards. But the Secretary of State’s central challenge is whether targets are matched by the scale of action required in this decisive decade, and once again, his statement showed that the Government are very good at self-congratulation but perhaps less good at self-awareness. The evidence is that there is a wide gap between rhetoric and reality. Crucial areas are not being dealt with, and the scale of finance is not being delivered, leading us to be off track on our targets.
Let us take a few key issues. The first is buildings, a crucial part of decarbonisation. Last year, the green homes grant—remember that?—was the flagship measure, which the Secretary of State said would
Next, let us turn to electric vehicles. Again, we were supposed to see the transport decarbonisation strategy last year. Today, the Secretary of State did not even give a date for publication, so perhaps he can tell us in his reply when we will see it. We support the 2030 phase-out date, but the Climate Change Committee says—this is really important—that we will need 48% of the cars sold in the UK to be EVs by 2025, in just four years’ time. Despite the recent progress that he talked about, we are way off that, at less than 15%. We are not financing gigafactories, on which there is a global race. Our charging infrastructure remains inadequate, and the Government have actually cut the plug-in grant. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government are not investing enough to make the EV revolution happen in the way that is necessary for our car industry’s future and consumers?
Here is the worry I have about the scale of investment. The Secretary of State talks about investment over the decade of tens of billions, public and private, but everyone from PwC to the CCC says that we need that investment not over a decade but each and every year to get on track for our targets. In that context, the Treasury’s crucial net zero review was due in autumn 2020, and now it has been promised for spring 2021. Well, we are in spring 2021. Can he tell us when it will finally see the light of day? It is a crucial piece of work.
The climate emergency is a massive challenge for our country—the biggest long-term challenge we face. There is also a massive opportunity for our country, with our amazing scientists, our brilliant workforce and our world-leading businesses. But to make that future happen, we need a Government with the aspiration and commitment that matches the ingenuity and aspiration of the British people. Instead of a piecemeal 10-point plan, we need a comprehensive green new deal with the scale of investment and commitment that meets the moment and the emergency. I am afraid that I do not believe the Government’s record measures up to the scale of the challenge we face. We will hold them to account on behalf of the country.
[Source]
-
12 May 2021: Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work
The central question facing this Gracious Speech is whether it can rise to the moment in which we find ourselves because, while life is starting to return to a semblance of normality, and we are all thankful that that is happening, we cannot just go back to business as usual. Exposed in this pandemic we see millions of workers in deeply insecure jobs, the key workers in our country underpaid and undervalued, public services under deep strain, and an economy not working for too many people in our country and characterised by deep inequalities of wealth, income, power and place. And on top of that we face the challenge of economic recovery from covid and the climate emergency.
What would that mean as a start? It would mean five things: tackling insecurity at work with a new deal for workers; responding to the climate emergency with a genuine green industrial revolution; supporting our businesses to recover from the pandemic; rewriting the rules of our economy to shift wealth and power towards ordinary people and their communities; and rebuilding our public services. On those five issues, the British public deserved a Queen’s Speech that met the moment, but on each of those tests the Gracious Speech failed to deliver.
Let us consider the climate emergency. There has been lots of talk about jobs and skills in this debate—lots of good rhetoric. What do we see in the United States? President Biden has a $1 trillion green stimulus over the next decade. We have called for a £30 billion stimulus over the next 18 months to create 400,000 green jobs. What do this Government offer? Investment that, even on their own dodgy analysis, is one 60th the level of Biden’s stimulus.
[Source]
-
14 Apr 2021: Topical Questions
11:56
Last month, the COP President wrote that the world is doing nowhere near enough to limit global warming to 1.5° C, and he is right. A green economic stimulus could make a huge difference to meeting the target, but while we have put it as the top item of the G7 agenda, the sum total of the Chancellor’s measures here in the UK promised just £12 billion of green spending over a decade, and he has already cut £1 billion from that. Our investment is 60 times smaller than President Biden’s green infrastructure plan. Is it not a very significant challenge for COP26 that when it comes to a green stimulus we are telling others to act but not doing so ourselves?
[Source]
11:59
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, as COP26 host, our actions face particular scrutiny, and I think he will know that the international community is increasingly concerned, and not just on green recovery. The Government call on others to power past coal but flirt with a new coalmine; say to others, “Adopt a net zero target”, but are off track on ours; and tell countries to support the world’s poorest but slash aid spending. Rachel Kyte, former special representative of the UN Secretary-General, said this week of our record on climate:
[Source]
-
23 Mar 2021: Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
14:19
Quite. We support the intent of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, but hon. and right hon. Members across the House should be aware that while the ARIA budget is £800 million over this Parliament, UK Research and Innovation’s annual budget is £9 billion. Last week, UKRI published a letter confirming that the BEIS official development assistance allocation will lead to a £120 million gap between its allocation and the commitments that it has already made. It warned of cuts coming on that scale, and the House should be aware of where those cuts are going to be. Potential areas include climate change, antimicrobial resistance, pandemics, renewable energy and water sanitation. Those are the kinds of things that that funding addresses. Mr Cummings was also at the Select Committee meeting—I will return to him shortly—saying that ARIA would solve the problems of civilisation. That is all very well, but I fear that these cuts seem to be coming right here, right now; and we cannot launch a successful moonshot if we cut off the power supply to the space station.
[Source]
Take the net zero challenge. I believe it is a challenge of political will and imagination, but it is also a technological challenge. If it is the No. 1 international challenge, as the PM said last week, and if it is the No. 1 domestic challenge, as I think it is, why would it not be the right mandate for ARIA for at least its first five years? Indeed, Professor Richard Jones and Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who perhaps have even greater claims than Dom to being godfather and godmother of this idea, said that climate change would be an ideal challenge on which an agency such as ARIA would focus. To be clear, providing a mandate does not mean micromanaging decisions, and it would be grossly simplistic to suggest otherwise.
[Source]
00:02
I am conscious of time, so let me say in conclusion that we face enormous challenges as a society, including new threats from disease, as tragically illustrated by the pandemic, the advent of artificial intelligence and, as I have said, the climate emergency. So the challenges we face are huge, but I believe—I know this is shared across the House—that the ingenuity, know-how and potential of our scientists, researchers and others are as great as, if not greater than, the challenges. If we support them, they can succeed. ARIA can support our scientific research. We support this Bill as a way to add capacity and flexibility to our research and innovation systems. It needs to be done in the right way. On the Bill and what is happening to British science, we will support the Government when they do the right thing but we will also call them out on cuts to science funding, and during the passage of the Bill we will seek to improve it so that it can strengthen our science base and do what is required to help us meet the massive challenges we face as a society.
[Source]
-
9 Mar 2021: Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
00:09
While I would praise some of the measures taken by the Chancellor, I do not believe that a fair-minded observer would say that the Budget passes the Bevin test. On jobs, according to the OBR, even by 2025 unemployment never even gets back to pre-crisis levels. On welfare, the Budget tells people on universal credit that they need to go back to living on £74 a week from September, just as unemployment starts to peak. On the next crisis—the climate emergency—the Budget rejects a green stimulus and cuts green spending, as I will explain.
[Source]
Beneath the rhetoric, the Government cannot be the answer to the problems of the country. They may have produced a document charting 10 years of failure on productivity, but they have not changed their view. The answer to 10 years of failure cannot be more of the same. This should have been a Budget with a plan to respond to the climate emergency by creating the jobs of the future; and a Budget with a plan to help business through the crisis and beyond with debt restructuring, providing a decent pay rise for our key workers and dignity in the social security system, rather than plunging the most vulnerable into deeper poverty. This is a Budget of low ambition for Britain. The post-war generation would never have accepted such a meagre vision as that presented by the Chancellor and the Government. They never would have, and neither should we, and that is why we will vote against the Budget tonight.
[Source]
-
24 Feb 2021: Topical Questions
I warmly welcome the President of COP26 to his full- time role. It is in all our interests that he should succeed, and we want to do everything that we can to help. The central judgment of COP26’s success is whether it keeps alive the Paris target of limiting global warming to 1.5°. To make that happen, the UN says that we need to more than halve global greenhouse gas emissions from 52 gigatonnes today to 25 gigatonnes by 2030. Will he assure us that he recognises the scale of this challenge and the need for maximum ambition, and tell the House how close to that target he thinks we can get at COP26?
[Source]
A crucial issue for the success of the COP is international finance for developing countries, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and they are facing poverty, the pandemic and climate change. Yet the Government have shamefully chosen this moment to cut £25 billion to £30 billion from overseas aid over the course of this Parliament. They say that they are protecting climate aid, but they have not set out what that means year on year, so will he guarantee today that, in the coming financial year when the COP takes place, there will be no cut to the level of the UK’s climate finance budget or to the climate programmes that we fund?
[Source]
-
20 Jan 2021: National Security and Investment Bill
May I begin by adding my congratulations to the new Secretary of State? Promotion to the Cabinet with such an important role as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy must be a proud moment for him, and it is in the interests of the country that he succeeds, so I offer him my warmest congratulations. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). We all wish him incredibly well in his important job as the full-time president of COP26. He and I approached our exchanges in a constructive spirit, meeting, I hope, the mood of the times, and I hope that I can have the same relationship with the Secretary of State.
It is clearer than ever that when it comes to the big challenges facing this country, from national security to the climate emergency and our future prosperity, an active industrial policy will be one of the most important tools in our arsenal. The challenge for the Secretary of State is to match his words on industrial policy with deeds, and we will judge him on that. We certainly need to drop the tired, failed cliché that all the state can do to support the economy is get out of the way, deregulate, and cut workers’ rights. If that is the Secretary of State’s view of how best to support our economy, let me tell him that we will fight him every step of the way.
[Source]
-
14 Dec 2020: Energy White Paper
00:00
Can I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? This White Paper has been promised year after year, so there have been high expectations for it, and I know I should say that the Secretary of State and his Minister are deeply committed to the fight against the climate crisis, but the test of this White Paper is not just good intentions, but whether it is a plan at the scale of ambition we need to create the jobs we need and deliver the fairness we need. While there are certainly elements in the White Paper we welcome, I fear that too often the sound we hear when we read its pages is that of the can being kicked down the road.
First, on ambition, we would like to go further and faster than Government targets, but the very least they must be doing is meeting, with policies, the target for 2030 that they have set and the recent proposal by the Committee on Climate Change for a 78% reduction in emissions by 2035. The CCC is clear that, as part of its plan, we need to deliver zero-carbon electricity by that date—2035—but my understanding from the White Paper is that it appears simply to have an ambition of 2050 for zero-emissions electricity. Can the Secretary of State explain what appears to be a lesser ambition?
Crucial to jobs is also a just transition for any workers in industries that will lose out. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there needs to be a proper plan for those in fossil fuel industries, including the use of using their skills in renewable sectors? Can he explain why there is not such a plan already, and will he work with trade unions and others to develop such a vital plan with urgency?
That brings me to my final point: markets have a role in this transition, but the Government must have a guiding hand. Whether it is a plan to decarbonise our homes, the future of the network infrastructure or the planned energy mix, the Government must match their intentions by playing their proper role to deliver in a way that is fair, creates jobs and shows the requisite ambition. If the Government do that, we will support them; but, on the basis of today’s effort, they still have a long way to go.
[Source]
-
29 Jun 2020: Business and Planning Bill
00:01
We know how behind the Government are on building retrofits. The Committee on Climate Change recently said that there has been “negligible progress since 2015” and that the challenge of retrofit and renovation has gone “largely unaddressed.” We know that investing in retrofit is the ultimate win-win. This is the ideal opportunity —it would help the construction sector, not just in relation to operational hours, and could create tens of thousands of jobs—but today there are reports that it is being blocked by none other than Dominic Cummings. Apparently, he is uninterested and thinks it is “boring old housing insulation”. The Secretary of State and I have a good relationship, and I am happy to give way to him so that he can say that the £9 billion is going to happen. We need the £9 billion, so I am happy to give way. He has overruled Dominic Cummings on Sunday trading; now is the time to overrule him on this.
[Source]
-
3 Jun 2020: Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill
Fourthly, crucial to helping businesses through this crisis is an economic stimulus that matches the moment. In particular, I hope that plans for a green recovery, which the Government have been talking about, will be at the centre of what they do. This is the way to get our economy moving, help to save businesses and meet our climate goals.
[Source]
-
30 Jan 2020: Flooding: South Yorkshire
15:11
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, particularly as your mother resides in my constituency, so this debate has particular relevance to your family. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing this important debate, and it is good to see the Minister in her place. I know she takes the issues around climate change and the climate emergency very seriously and is a sympathetic listener, as I hope she will be today.
[Source]
-
26 Sep 2019: International Climate Action
13:28
COP 26 is obviously an important moment not just for Britain but for the world. We will be trying to persuade Europe, India, China and others to ramp up their ambition for 2030, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has told us that we have 10 years to turn round the path of emissions. Can I therefore suggest to her that, as well as having a net-zero target for 2050, we need to ramp up our ambition for 2030? Will she therefore ask the Committee on Climate Change to look not just at the pathway to 2030 but at what more we can do as a country so that we can persuade others to follow us?
[Source]
-
24 Jun 2019: Climate Change
18:41
I shall make three substantive points. The first is about the target itself. It is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, and I welcome it, but I believe that it should be regarded as—I hesitate to use this word—a backstop. [Laughter.] I could not think of a better word, although I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for one.
The reality is that the science is heading in one direction, towards more urgent action. Let me draw the House’s attention to a document that was produced for the Committee on Climate Change by its international advisory group, chaired by Peter Betts, an excellent former civil servant who was responsible for the international negotiations. In that document, the group said that we should set a net zero date no later than 2050, and that there was a case for 2045. As the Minister said, it is good that there is a review clause, and I think that we may well have to bring that point forward.
My second point is this: if you will the end, you have to will the means. I am glad to hear that the energy White Paper is coming, and the Minister has built up my expectations about what it will contain. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West talked about cars. By the mid-2020s, the lifetime costs of electric vehicles will be lower than the lifetime costs of petrol and diesel vehicles. As the Committee on Climate Change says, the economically sensible choice is to make an earlier rather than a later transition. That is not to say that no issues are involved, but that makes a profound point about the benefits of m oving forward.
Thirdly, if we will the means as well as the end, we should think not just about the 1% to 2% of GDP that this will cost—on top of what we already spend—but about the 98% of other economic activity. I raise the issue of the Heathrow third runway gingerly, but if we are so serious about this climate emergency, I do not see how we cannot look at all the things that the Government and the private sector are doing and ask whether they make sense in a net zero world. I hope that the comprehensive spending review will have a net zero carbon budgeting process attached to it.
My final point concerns the international negotiations. It is excellent that we shall be hosting the conference of the parties next year, but let me say to the Minister and to the House that this is a massive challenge. It is an incredibly important moment for the world, when every country has to update its Paris targets. In a way, this is the last chance for us to get on track for what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has described to us as a really dangerous and urgent situation. Let me say this to the Minister. Of course Brexit will be ongoing, at least for a bit, but will he please ensure that all the political and diplomatic muscle of Government will be put into this process? It is a massive thing for the world, and it will require a huge focus from the Government. This is an important moment, and I welcome it, but, in a sense, the hard work is only just beginning for all of us.
[Source]
-
12 Jun 2019: Net Zero Emissions Target
13:25
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and join those who have paid tribute to the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, because this idea had been lying around for a couple of years in the long grass of government and it was she who took it out of that long grass and helped make it happen. I also welcome the five-year review mechanism because we might well need to bring forward the net zero date from 2050; that might not be the original intention of the review mechanism but it may be necessary. May I however ask the Secretary of State to recognise that in its advice the Climate Change Committee said very specifically that as well as setting the target itself, the Government must put in place the policies to meet the target? That means, as it said, a 2030, not 2040, cut-off date for new petrol and diesel vehicles; a proper decarbonisation plan for our 27 million homes, which we do not have; and an end to the moratorium on onshore wind—a moratorium I believe is now economically illiterate as it is now our cheapest fuel available? Can the Secretary of State assure us that henceforth there will be leadership not just on targets but on action?
[Source]
-
1 May 2019: Environment and Climate Change
15:26
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). Her eloquent words on climate change show that the Front Bench’s loss is the Back Benches’ gain and this House’s gain.
The tone of this debate has been largely good-natured and about shared objectives, and that is important. This debate matters, and the emergency matters, because, contrary to what the Secretary of State implied, we are not doing nearly enough as a country. It is true that we have made a lot of progress in relation to the power sector, but 75% of the gains we have made overall since 2012 have been in that sector alone. The latest report of the Committee on Climate Change in 2018 says that emissions in the building sector, the agriculture sector, the waste sector and the fluorinated gases sector have been flat for a decade.
The emergency matters because it says to not only the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or other Departments—the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is also on the Front Bench—but the whole Government that this matters to everyone and that this is not just another issue we have to deal with, alongside all the other issues we face. Every issue has to go through climate change and what we do about it. It is the whole basis of our politics for generations to come. I hope that the Secretary of State will support the emergency, because it will focus minds in the Government.
It is bad thing that in the 2015 TV debate, which I do not like to recall too much, not one question was asked about climate change, and that tells us something about the fact that Brexit—it is bad enough, given how it sucks the political oxygen out of all the other issues—is not the only reason why this issue has not been more salient, or rather that it goes through peaks and troughs. I think that the reason is that this is the ultimate challenge for politics, because the decisions we make now will have impacts in generations’ time, but less so today. The electoral cycle, if we are honest about it—and we respond to our voters—is five years, or perhaps less, not 20, 30 or 40 years.
[Source]
15:29
I want to talk about how we persuade people, and I think there are four things we need to do. First, I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who speaks from the Front Bench for the SNP, but I slightly disagreed with one thing. She said a couple of times that we need to tell people their lives are going to be less comfortable. I slightly feel that that is saying, “I’m here from Planet Politics to say you’re going to have a less comfortable life.” I do not mean this in a trite way—I think it true that sacrifices must be made—but we should promise people something else, which is that they will have better lives if we act on climate change. I do not think that is a false promise; I think that is a genuine promise.
My experience at the not-very-successful Copenhagen summit was that China and India would listen to us because, unlike the US, we were actually acting. I cannot emphasise enough to the House the authority that our ability to act gives us. By the way, the Chinese recognise the opportunity. They are installing so much solar and wind power because they know that there is an economic advantage. The issue is particularly crucial in the next 15 to 18 months because of our hope to host COP—the conference of the parties—in 2020. That is the moment when we have to update the Paris targets. We are overshooting, even on the basis of the Paris targets. Unless that conference of the parties takes decisive action, it may well be too late.
[Source]
-
23 Apr 2019: Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion
15:45
People can believe that the tactics of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong—the Minister obviously believes they are wrong—but the demonstrators are certainly not wrong about the failure of politics to do anything like what is necessary to fight climate change: they are right. She said in her reply that we have made progress as a country, and I thank her for what she said about me, but the truth is that the planet is warming far faster than we are acting. Even the path-breaking Paris commitments will take us way beyond the disaster of 2°C of warming, as the Minister knows. The truth is that climate change is not some theoretical future prospect; it is with us here and now, with wildfires, droughts and floods. We have been warned by the scientists: it will get far worse if we do not act with much greater urgency. In these circumstances, it is no wonder people are disrupting the traffic and schoolchildren are striking. The response from Government cannot simply be to restore order and say they are doing a good job. The only credible answer of democratic politics in response to these protests is to admit that we need to raise our game and show we can act.
May I therefore ask the Minister today to commit to the following four actions as a down-payment on what is necessary? First, will she seek to persuade the Prime Minister to declare a climate emergency, as many local authorities have done, in order to focus minds across Government on the centrality of this issue to every Department, not just hers? Goodness knows that is necessary, because we know from the figures that came out just before Easter that the Government are woefully behind in meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets covering the next decade.
Secondly, the Minister is to be commended for asking the Committee on Climate Change to recommend a date when the UK will need to hit zero emissions, which it will do next week, but these recommendations cannot be allowed to get buried in Whitehall. So will she now commit to responding formally to them before the summer recess? Only by Britain showing world leadership again, quickly, can we hope to persuade other countries to act.
Fourthly and finally, will she take up the idea of Extinction Rebellion and others to involve the public in these discussions about both the threat of climate change and the action necessary—and, yes, the trade-offs—with a process of citizen deliberation? For too long—this covers both parties—people have been shut out of the climate debate and made to feel powerless. That must change.
She is right. If we do not act, people will say in the future, “You knew the facts, but you did not care enough.” We will be known as the generations with the knowledge of what was to come but without the will or imagination to prevent it. We will be condemned, and rightly so. The right response to rebellion on our streets is to produce a revolution in climate leadership, and the time for action is now.
[Source]
-
1 Feb 2017: European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
13:01
Enlargement of the EU following the fall of the Berlin wall—as a nation, we advocated for that enlargement; leadership on climate change under the last Government and, I freely say, under this Government; a commitment to the rule of law and human rights; a belief in the importance of multilateral institutions—all of these have been bound up in our relationship with the European Union, and we should not be under any illusion about the real risk that, following our departure, our influence in the world will be weaker, not stronger.
I negotiated on climate change for the last Labour Government, and our strength, our power, our standing on that issue came from our membership of the European Union because we accounted for 10% of global emissions, not just 1%. The House should therefore recognise that the question of what strategic relationships come after Brexit is fundamental to the issue of real sovereignty and our ability to have an effect on the big issues that will affect us.
[Source]
-
25 Jan 2017: Engagements
12:43
As the first foreign leader to meet President Trump, the Prime Minister carries a huge responsibility on behalf not just of this country but of the whole international community in the tone that she sets. Can I ask her to reassure us that she will say to the President that he must abide by, and not withdraw from, the Paris climate change treaty? In case it is helpful, can she offer the services of UK scientists to convince the President that climate change is not a hoax invented by the Chinese?
[Source]
-
7 Sep 2016: Paris Agreement on Climate Change
15:52
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), who spoke eloquently, particularly about the role that renewable heat can play. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate. He brings huge knowledge and depth to his role and I wish him well in it. I should also take this opportunity to congratulate the new the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Mention was made earlier of the fact that he was my shadow when I was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I always respected his ability and commitment on climate change. I was deeply disappointed by the abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change but the one saving grace was his appointment and that of his extremely able Minister for Climate Change and Industry. I have spoken to the latter since the election about climate change. I do not want to damn his career too much, but I can say that he is a class act, as we will hear when he speaks.
In the main, I want to talk about the impact of Brexit on climate change, but I should mention in passing that I could not help hearing in the Minister’s remarks the wheels of government grinding on the issue of domestic ratification. As his speech wore on, we got more of a sense that it would come more quickly than slowly. I encourage him in that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North is right about the signal it would send.
The central issue for UK climate policy is Brexit. That is the unavoidable context for discussions about climate change. I have been nice about the Minister of State. I am not going take it back, don’t worry—maybe he’d like me to. He talked about British diplomacy. There is a big elephant in the room for British diplomacy on climate change: Brexit. We have to address it. I understand that the Prime Minister says she does not want a running commentary—fair enough—but there is a difference between a running commentary and a Trappist vow. There cannot be a Trappist vow. We have to engage with the many, many hard questions raised by Brexit for UK climate policy. Saying “Brexit means Brexit” does not really solve the problem.
The case I want to make is this: first, our membership of the EU has helped us to be a persuader for global action on climate change. Secondly, the ability to persuade is needed more than ever after the Paris agreement. We all know the issue in the Paris agreement: an aspiration to keep global warming below 1.5° with pledges that add up to about 3°. Thirdly, Britain’s ability to be that persuader for greater ambition is gravely endangered by Brexit. We cannot shy away from that. The real issue I want to focus on is this: the kind of Brexit we opt for—whether it is hard Brexit, which leaves Britain on its own, or whether we forge a new close relationship with the European Union—will be absolutely crucial to the issue of UK influence and the world’s ability to tackle the problem of climate change. That is why, having paid them nice compliments, I want to say to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that they have a big responsibility in this process—I am sure they are aware of it—to ensure we have the right outcome in these negotiations on climate and energy.
The starting point for addressing this question is to understand that, in this area and in many others, the debate about our co-operation with the EU has not somehow ended with the referendum. It is only just beginning. I was on the remain side, but we all know the reality: the British people did not vote for a particular model of Brexit. They voted to leave the European Union, but the model we decide now has to be a matter of detailed debate and negotiation. As the House knows, in the international negotiations on climate change we currently negotiate as part of the European Union. As part of the EU, we are on a par with players such as China and the United States. The EU is responsible for about 10% of global emissions and Britain is responsible for about 1%. In the EU, we have been a successful advocate of strong European ambition on climate change. We have been—mention was made of this earlier in the debate—at the forefront of landmark international agreements, punching above our weight as a country. To be fair, we have seen that under Governments of both parties: at Kyoto in 1997, with the role played by John, now Lord, Prescott; and just last December, to give her rightful credit, with the role played by the last Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, now the Home Secretary, in the negotiations around the Paris agreement.
We in this House should be proud of what Britain has been able to achieve, but we should be under no illusions. The influence and role that Britain has played in the past two decades on climate change, which has been hard won, is now gravely at risk. The danger, in this area and in many others, is that we are outside the room when the big decisions are made, or are in the room as bit-part players. A recent paper from Chatham House, the respected international think-tank based in London, said that the danger of Brexit is that we would
All those countries have played varying roles on the issue of climate change, some of them important and honourable, but we have had greater influence. I want to preserve that influence.
There is another danger. We have been persuaders for ambition in the European Union and the real danger is that our absence from the EU waters down and dilutes the commitment of the EU. The danger is that our absence tips the centre of gravity away from the high-ambition countries to those countries that have more anxiety about the issue. That is why the implications of Brexit are not just self-serving ones about Britain’s influence in the world and on climate change; they are also about the world’s ability to make the right things happen in the fight against global warming.
The risk that I have described about Britain’s influence comes with other associated dangers, including for the role of British science and research, which I am sure the Secretary of State and the Minister are concerned about and which draws huge benefit from EU resources, and of the European Investment Bank, which in the past few years has either loaned or given the UK a quarter of the money for energy and climate change projects. There is also a massive issue relating to the repeal of environmental legislation from the European Union.
I want to be clear: we would not continue to be members of the European Union—our status would change—but we would be crucial partners, and in my view that is completely consistent with the referendum. We should do that because it is in our national interest. Whether Members think we have gone too far on climate change or not far enough, nobody in this House, on whichever side they sit, has an interest in diminishing our influence. I think it is just objectively the case that we are in real danger of diminishing our influence as a country on this vital issue for the future of our people.
Finally, I believe in the principle of co-operation with our closest neighbours in Europe, and I believe that we are strengthened, not diminished, as a country when we do that. Climate change is just one example of where that is the case. That was true before the referendum, and it is true after the referendum as well. I think that both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State know that, too. The stakes could not be higher on this issue and on what unfolds in the coming months and years. We will hold them to account, because Members of all parties care about not just tackling climate change, but making sure that we can continue to punch above our weight as we do so and get the right outcome for humankind. A lot rests on those Ministers’ shoulders; if they make the right decision, we will support them on it.
[Source]
-
14 Mar 2016: Energy Bill [Lords]
18:03
The new clause would insert the commitment to zero emissions in the Paris climate change agreement into our domestic law, with the Committee on Climate Change advising on when it should be achieved. It is the right thing to do and the science is clear: the world needs to get to zero emissions early in the second half of this century, and it is worth reminding the House of the debate’s context.
My proposal makes economic, moral and political sense. It makes economic sense because we have to get to zero emissions eventually. It will be tough, so we need to start planning now. We are already aware of some of the tools we will need, but not all of them. We need clean energy supplies, a revolution in the household sector and reforestation. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), who speaks for the SNP, said, we need carbon capture and storage to trap emissions. We will also need other technologies that are in the early stages of development. Crucially, we need to start the work now so that we can get to zero emissions at least cost. The economic case is proven by the support from the business community, and I thank Aviva, GSK, Unilever, Kingspan, Kingfisher and the broader “We Mean Business” coalition for their backing. The proposal also makes moral sense. Achieving zero emissions is necessary, so it would be irresponsible to pretend otherwise. Future generations will look badly on a generation that stuck its head in the sand and refused to plan ahead.
[Source]
18:03
I agree with the end of the hon. Lady’s point. My proposal is deliberately pragmatic. It would put zero emissions into law, but the date would be decided by Government on the basis of advice from the Committee on Climate Change. That is right and it would be the lowest-cost way of proceeding. We need the experts’ advice. After all, they were appointed with cross-party support.
I am delighted to say that since I made this proposal three months ago I have had constructive discussions with the Government. I will not try to predict the reaction of the Minister of State, but I want to record my thanks to her, the Secretary of State, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office for their willingness to engage. I hope that we can move the idea forward in the months ahead and demonstrate once again the cross-party commitment to tackling climate change that is shared by the vast majority of hon. Members. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
[Source]
-
22 Feb 2016: European Council
16:02
I want to go to the big picture question, which is about how we influence things in our national interest. Let me draw the Prime Minister out on the powerful end to his statement. Of course, by being a member of the European Union, we do not always get out own way, but given what he said to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on all the major issues, whether it is trade, climate change or terrorism and security—he can tell us, because he has been the Prime Minister—does he believe we have more influence in the European Union or outside? Surely the answer is that we have more influence inside the European Union, not outside. That is why I passionately believe we must remain in the European Union.
[Source]
-
18 Jan 2016: Energy Bill [Lords]
I beg his pardon. He was one of the five Members who voted against the Climate Change Act 2008, which was supported right across the House. It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that I approach this subject from a slightly different perspective, and I want to focus on how the Bill can be improved. Given the scale of the challenge we face, the right question to ask about any energy or climate Bill before the House is this: will it do everything necessary to meet our obligations and the requirements placed on us to take a leading role in tackling climate change? I believe that things can be done to the Bill to ensure that it does so.
This Bill is unlike many other Bills that have come before the House, in that a very important event has happened in between its being introduced in the other place and its Second Reading today. That event was the historic Paris climate change agreement. I paid tribute to the Secretary of State when she made her statement on the Paris agreement, and I do so again today for the incredible job that she has done.
My case to the House is that we need to reflect the high ambition of Paris in the Bill. In particular, I want to set out why the Government, in the light of the Paris commitment to a long-term global goal of zero emissions, should use this Bill to legislate for the same objective here in the UK. We need to legislate for zero emissions in law, with the date to be advised by the independent Climate Change Committee. I want to thank Members across the House whom I have talked to about these questions. They include Members on my Front Bench, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), Liberal Democrat Members, Scottish National party Members and, indeed, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who plays an important role as the chair of GLOBE International, the international parliamentarians’ committee. If other hon. Members want to know more about this subject, a paper has been published today by the organisation Sandbag, setting out the case. My case is threefold. It is about consistency between international agreements and domestic action; it is about the economic case; and it is about the effect we can have on other countries.
[Source]
My first case for acting relates to consistency between international agreements and domestic action. When I set a target of 80% by 2050 in the Climate Change Act, that was agreed on a cross-party basis and we were at the most radical end of the spectrum. That target was formulated to give us a fighting chance of keeping global warming below 2°C. However, Paris has crucially moved the world on from that. Paris sets a twofold objective: to try to keep global warming below 1.5°C, given that we are already at 1°, and, crucially, to achieve the long-term goal of zero emissions.
[Source]
It is totally simplistic to say that the Climate Change Act has led to that. It is a result of a whole series of decisions that the Government have had to make. As the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden will remember, Lord Stern’s report made the crucial point that the cost of not acting on climate change will be greater than the cost of acting. Just look at the floods that we have seen in the last couple of months! We are going to have a lot more of that—coming soon to a constituency near you! I am sorry to accuse the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) of sticking his head in the sand, but that is exactly what we are doing if we say that we do not need to act, that everything will be okay and that we should just carry on with business as usual. To be fair to the Secretary of State, who might not thank me for saying this, I do not think she believes that that is what we should do. She is on the right side of this argument. Of course we have to do it at the lowest cost we can, but let us not pretend that somehow this problem does not exist—we are seeing its effects all around the world, and if we do not act, we are going to have a lot more of them.
[Source]
I now wish to carry on making my case. If we support zero emissions globally—that is what the Secretary of State has done—the logical position is that we must also support it domestically. We set a target of an 80% reduction, but it does not make sense to have 80% as the target when we know from the science and from the global agreement that we will eventually have to get to zero emissions.
The second part of my case is based on economics, and I wish to make the following comments to Conservative Members in particular. They will worry that my proposal sounds as though it is going to raise costs, but quite the opposite is true. I ask them to listen to some of the business voices who are saying that they want us to set a clear target for zero emissions. Why are they saying this? It is because certainty is the friend of business in this area and uncertainty its enemy. Richard Branson has said that a net zero emissions goal simply makes “good business” as it
Thirdly, and finally, my case goes beyond our borders. The Paris agreement is a great one, but its biggest weakness is that if we look at the aggregate of the different commitments made by different countries, we see that although the aspiration may be to limit warming to less than 1.5°, when we add them up they seem to be more like 3°-worth of commitments. Some might ask what difference the UK can make, as it represents only 1% of global emissions. They might ask why our acting has an impact. I say to the House that it does have an impact. The Climate Change Act—I give credit to the Conservative party because it supported this and actually pushed the then Government to do this—had an impact, not only in Britain but around the world. When the Secretary of State went to the Paris negotiations and urged others to take action, they were not able to say to her, “You are pretending you care about these things and want to legislate for them, but actually you are not taking action in your own domestic legislation.” We did do that.
[Source]
I say to the House, and to those who are sceptical about action having been taken, that the 2015 global climate legislation study looks at climate change legislation in 99 countries and talks about the speed of response following the UK’s Climate Change Act. My threefold case is that we need to have consistency between domestic and international action; that there is an economic case for doing this; and that we have an impact on other countries if we act.
I wish to deal with two other points that might be made to me about why my approach is a bad idea. The first is that we should stick to our existing targets and not worry about having more ambition. People might say, “Why do we need more ambition when we have this framework already in place?” By doing so, they are sticking their heads in the sand, because if we have to get to zero emissions, we should start that process now. It is a hard task, but it is a feasible one and we need to know that we should get there. My case is a pragmatic one. I am not saying, “Pluck out of the air a date on which to get to zero emissions.” I am not simply saying we should get there in 2050, as some business leaders have urged. I am saying that we should get the independent experts—the Committee on Climate Change—to look at these issues and advise government on when we should put this into UK domestic law.
The second point, which I think has been made in interventions, is that somehow we are going far too far ahead of other countries—that this is us being far too far out in front. The simple point to make about that is that more than 190 countries have now signed up to this zero emissions goal in the Paris agreement. Every country is theoretically signed up to this goal, so the question is: are we actually going to do it? Is this goal just warm words? Is this just us pretending that we are going to act but not really following it through?
In conclusion, I hope the Government will come forward with an amendment such as I have been outlining. If they do not, I want to work with people across this House to seek to make it happen. The Government can support this measure, so I hope they will table an amendment, either in Committee or on Report. It would build on the momentum of the Paris agreement, it is in the best cross-party traditions of the Climate Change Act, and it would send a powerful signal around the world and in Britain about our determination to act. Above all, it would increase our ability to tackle dangerous climate change. Notwithstanding the contribution from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, this is something that unites the vast majority of Members across this House. I therefore hope the Government will give this suggestion the consideration it deserves.
[Source]
-
15 Dec 2015: Climate Change and Flooding
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who plays a very important role in the GLOBE organisation of parliamentarians. This debate comes at a timely moment after the Paris agreement, and after the tragedy of the floods that we have seen. I know that many hon. Friends want to talk about the effects on their constituencies, so I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief.
I want to focus on the question of what the Paris agreement means for UK domestic policy. In doing so, I praise the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who played an important role in the talks. She was the host of the high ambition coalition between developed and vulnerable countries, and her office was its headquarters. She deserves credit for the very constructive role that she played. Having said that, when I listened to her statement yesterday, I felt, while I do not want to be unfair to her, that her position was somewhat to say, “Everything has changed and nothing has changed.” In other words, internationally everything has changed, with high ambitions, zero emissions and all that stuff, but for the UK things are the same as before. I want to make the case that that cannot be right, for four reasons, three of which are to do with the agreement itself.
The Committee on Climate Change picked up on this point in its release yesterday, saying that it would make it even more important—I am paraphrasing somewhat but I do not think I am misrepresenting it—that we met its recommendations on carbon budgets, and that it might be the case that further steps should be taken. It said that it would come back to the Secretary of State on that in early 2016. I would be interested to hear what she thinks are the implications of this more exacting target—because it definitely is more exacting.
[Source]
Secondly, the agreement contains not just the 1.5° aim but a long-term goal of zero emissions. When I asked the Secretary of State about this yesterday, she said that she was happy pursuing the existing targets in the Climate Change Act. I think that those targets are very important, because I helped legislate for them, and I am very happy that she wants to make sure that we meet them. However, when I was Climate Change Secretary we had not had a global agreement for net zero emissions. We cannot possibly say, “We’ve got this global commitment to zero emissions in the second half of the century but it has no implications for UK domestic policy.” Of course we have to look at what it means for the UK.
My case to the Secretary of State, which I hope she will consider—I am not asking for an answer today—is that when the Energy Bill comes back to this House in the new year she amends it to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something very simple, which is to look at this issue and make a recommendation to Government about when we should achieve zero emissions. That would do a number of things. It would send a cross-party message that Britain is determined to be a climate leader; the Secretary of State has talked eloquently about the impact that the Climate Change Act had, with cross-party support. It would also reduce, not increase, the costs of transition, because it would provide a clear trajectory to business and, indeed, to future Governments.
I say to Conservative Members, who have understandable concerns, that it would be supported by business. I am not the most radical person on this issue. The most radical people are, believe it or not, Richard Branson, Paul Polman of Unilever and Ratan Tata. They want not just what I am suggesting, but something much more radical—they want zero emissions by 2050. Perhaps that is what the Committee on Climate Change will concede, but my approach is much more pragmatic, as is that of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). Let us not pluck a figure out of the air—such as 2050—without having the experts look at it; let us look at what the implications of the global goal of zero emissions are for the UK. That is a very reasonable suggestion.
[Source]
I do not want to say to the Secretary of State that this is easy, because it is a long way off, but it is an easy win for her. She would go down in history as the person who helped legislate for zero emissions, which is the ultimate backstop. When I was Secretary of State, the ultimate backstop was 80% reductions. Now we know from the global agreement that the ultimate backstop must be zero emissions at some point.
[Source]
Certainly. While we are on the subject of sorry sagas, I am afraid that one of the other sorry sagas is the CCS competition, which is a recipe for how not to make policy. It was started, believe it or not, nearly 10 years ago by the Labour Government. I think it was started under Alistair Darling. I then pushed it forward before this Government cancelled the competition, then restarted it and then cancelled it again.
[Source]
A fourth and final thing has changed since Paris, and it relates to the Secretary of State and her role in Government. I want to say something personal to her about that. I think that the thing that has changed after Paris is her negotiating power. Anyone who has been a Secretary of State knows that not all the decisions go their way—that was certainly true when I was Secretary of State. I am sure there have been a number of times over the past few months—obviously, the Secretary of State is not going to say this at the Dispatch Box—when she wanted a decision to go one way but it went another way. Successful Secretaries of State, however, recognise their power, and I say to her that she is empowered by the Paris agreement. She is empowered by it to tell the Prime Minister that he cannot just use warm words abroad and then not follow them through with deeds at home. She is empowered to tell the Chancellor that British business is, frankly, furious at the neglect of a crucial and growing sector of the economy. Above all, she is empowered to be the Cabinet champion for tackling climate change. If the Secretary of State does that—if she is that champion—she will get support from those Members on both sides of the House who believe in this cause, as I know that she does, too. They will support her in her endeavours.
In conclusion, whatever the Secretary of State does, we need to match the high ambition coalition in Paris with a high ambition coalition at home. That high ambition coalition has to combine trade unions, business and civil society. I do not see Paris as the end in any sense; it is merely the beginning—it gives us a new beginning on climate change. In the interests of future generations, we have to seize that moment.
[Source]
-
14 Dec 2015: Climate Change Agreement
I commend the Secretary of State for her role in this agreement and, in particular, the formation of the so-called “high ambition coalition” between developed countries and vulnerable countries, which was such an important part of getting the deal that she did. Labour Members want her to be part of a high ambition coalition at home as well as abroad. She mentioned the very important goal of net zero emissions contained in the agreement—I believe this is to be in the second half of the century. Can she confirm not only that that will apply globally, but that it must apply to each and every country that is a signatory to the agreement?
[Source]
-
19 Nov 2015: Paris Climate Change Conference
Let me return to the process of the Paris summit. We need an agreement that is as close as possible to what the science tells us is necessary. We should all be worried about what the science is telling us, because compared with six years ago it is even clearer. A good assessment produced by the Met Office earlier this month stated that 2015 is set to be the hottest year on record—yet another record. Some of that may be related to El Niño, but all the experts tell us that the underlying warming is a result of human-induced climate change. We are now at 1 °C of warming, which is half way to 2 °C. Importantly, global warming is not some theoretical idea—sometimes we speak as though it is—because it is happening now and the changes are already being witnessed.
Another study produced by the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this month found, among other things, that devastating floods in Indonesia in 2014, the 2013 Argentine heatwave, and tropical cyclones in Hawaii were all linked to human-induced climate change. The science is clear, dangerous, and should make us deeply concerned: climate change is real and it is happening now.
If the world ends up in 2100 with 3 °C warming, that would be catastrophic. It would mean temperatures that are higher than at any time in the last 3 million years, with dramatic effects of intense heatwaves, flooding, and millions—or hundreds of millions—of climate refugees. Does that mean that we should dismiss the likely Paris agreement? In my view, we should not. If the Secretary of State, her colleagues, and world leaders pull off an agreement in Paris, new ground will have been broken. It will be the first agreement to get anywhere even in the vague neighbourhood of 2°, the first to oblige all major emitters to take action to reduce emissions, and the first—we hope—comprehensively to stand up $100 billion of climate finance for mitigation and adaptation for the developing world. Those would be signal achievements—behind the science but ahead of where we have been.
Since the ambition will be insufficient at Paris, our focus should be on raising that ambition afterwards. I think of that in two parts: ambition before 2030, and ambition after. Before 2030—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned this—we need a ratchet mechanism to ensure that the Paris agreement is the beginning of what is required. That must mean a tough, five-year review mechanism, so that countries renew and improve their pledges. My colleague in another place, Baroness Worthington, said that the agreement might ultimately come to be seen as a global equivalent of our five-year carbon budgets, and that is the right way to think about it. The hope—I think it is not a forlorn hope—must be that as technology develops and as confidence is built, countries will move further and faster.
[Source]
In response to the point from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), ensuring progress means that we must keep on track here at home. Next Thursday there is an important moment when the Energy and Climate Change Committee publishes its recommendations for the fifth carbon budget, and I hope the Government will support that.
Let me move on to the period after 2030. Every excess tonne of carbon that we emit between now and 2030 means that we will have to do more later—we must be clear about that. The easiest way to think about it is that we have a finite carbon budget, which has been helpfully estimated by the UN to be about 1,000 gigatonnes—a round number. Once that is used up, we can emit no more if we are to avoid dangerous warming. Frighteningly, the UN tells us that on current pledges to 2030, 75% of that total carbon budget will be used up by 2030. That suggests the scale of the task facing us, particularly if we do not improve the pledges between now and 2030. The crucial point, whether we do that or not, is that the world will at some point have to reach zero emissions. I commend the Government and the Secretary of State for signing up to the G7 pledge, made recently, that the world will have to get to zero emissions sometime in the second half of this century.
It is striking that increasing numbers of business leaders—this again relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness—are putting their energies and thinking into the so-called net zero commitment. Ratan Tata, Paul Polman of Unilever, Richard Branson of Virgin and many others from the so-called B-team of business leaders, recently sent a letter to all those attending Paris calling for the adoption of the long-term goal of zero emissions. They are right: the long-term goal is an essential part of a successful Paris agreement.
What does zero emissions mean? It means a 100% clean energy system. It means the right decisions about infrastructure. It also means—this is where the inventers and engineers will be incredibly important—technological advance on how to capture carbon, reforestation and a whole range of other matters. Increasingly, the question of when and how we get to zero emissions will become our focus and energy after Paris. It will need to become the benchmark for the decisions we make in the years ahead.
Finally, we will also have to continue to work on the all-important question of a fair and equitable approach. The reality that all of us in the House have to face is that industrialised countries have grown in a high carbon way and we are now saying to poorer countries that they have to grow in a low carbon way. That is an unprecedented challenge of equity. It makes it all the more important that rich countries cut their emissions to allow space for poorer countries to develop. It also means, and I commend the Government for this, that it is right to be leading on development aid around climate change. That will enable countries to leapfrog the high carbon path and go to a low carbon path.
[Source]
Let me take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the role he plays in GLOBE International, which is an incredibly important organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has also played a very important role in that organisation. By bringing legislators together, it plays a crucial role in building support for tackling climate change.
I want to end by making two observations. My first observation is about the process of what we might call summitry. Many people thought Copenhagen was a failure—I referred to it at the beginning of my speech—and that it did not achieve what we wanted. It certainly did not meet people’s expectations. The reality, however, is that it laid the groundwork for some of what we are seeing in Paris: a 2° commitment, the $100 billion of climate finance and the whole notion of bottom-up pledges.
[Source]
My second and final observation—we have already had a bit of to and fro on policy questions—is on cross-party consensus. It is worth making the point that we came together, as political parties, to pass the Climate Change Act in 2008. It is hard to remember this—I checked back and even I was surprised—but the Act passed by 463 votes to three. That is an extraordinary achievement. The Prime Minister and I have had our differences over the years, but I have to say that, as Leader of the Opposition, he did indeed break new ground by putting this front and centre. The extraordinary consensus that was built sent a message about the commitment of the parties across this House. That was important in Britain. It was also—I do not think this is British arrogance—important around the world, too, as it sent an international message. Since 2008, we have seen the Climate Change Act emulated in many countries. Parties across this House should be proud of what we achieved together.
The point, to which I referred earlier, that I would perhaps mostly direct towards the Secretary of State is that it is hard being the biggest fighter for tackling climate change in government. There are many competing pressures, but I know she is totally a believer on these issues. I think that part of her role, if I may suggest this, is to find ways of maintaining and strengthening that consensus. This is not just in relation to the policies, but for the idea that somehow a good economy and a good environment are not in contradiction, but that the two go together. The CBI has made huge advances on this issue.
There will, of course, be disagreements. There is, however, a basic set of assumptions: the science on climate change is real; we know that, as human beings, we are responsible for it; and we are conscious—this is crucial—that we have in our hands the ingenuity to tackle the problem and deal with it. Whatever party we are from, we care about our responsibilities to hold the planet in trust for future generations. Whatever party we are from, we know we will be held to account for the actions we take or do not take now. Whatever party we are from—this relates to what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said in his intervention—our children will either see us as the last generation not to get climate change or the first generation to get it. That is why I believe we cannot afford to fail. I will be supporting the Secretary of State in getting the best possible agreement out of Paris.
[Source]
-
2 Jul 2015: Hatfield Colliery
17:00
At the heart of the debate is the following question: how do we shape a just transition to a low-carbon economy? I believe that this transition is right and necessary, and I support the Government in their endeavours to make it happen, but a just transition means fairness to workers in affected industries. Hatfield’s early closure is not, in my view, just, fair or right.
[Source]
17:00
I also want to use the debate to raise specific issues on which I hope the Minister can be of help. As I do so, I hope she will consider the context. Historically, we have asked the miners throughout our country to put themselves at some risk, in dangerous conditions, to help the rest of us to power our country. We therefore owe them a special duty of care. The miners at Hatfield were led to believe that they would have another 12 months of work and could therefore plan their futures. However, that situation changed in large part due to a Government decision. Inevitably, this chain of events leads to a deep sense of grievance against the Government. That grievance is compounded by the fact that the Treasury has benefited to the tune of £300 million from the high carbon tax. Our ask, therefore, is that the Government accept their share of responsibility and use a small part of the Treasury’s windfall gain to help the miners and their families. One option is to extend the life of the mine, but there are other things the Minister could do and I want to raise them with her.
Those are some specific asks about Hatfield that I put to the Minister, but I want to make a broader argument about Hatfield and the low-carbon transition and what we should learn from this episode. Coal is definitely a polluting fuel, and it is right that environmental standards are applied to it as part of the battle against climate change. That means that there is no viable future for unabated coal, but there is a future for clean coal technology through carbon capture and storage as part of our potential armoury in the transition to a low-carbon economy. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) says, there are tens of thousands of jobs along with it.
However, the Government’s energy policy does not add up. There is a plan for a CCS plant at Drax by 2020. It will be burning coal, and it could be coal from Hatfield colliery, which is less than 20 miles from Drax. Yet it will not be: it will be coal imported from thousands of miles away, from Colombia or Russia, with all the associated environmental costs.
Projections from the Department for Energy and Climate Change say that by 2029 we are set to burn 26 million tonnes of coal or natural gas through CCS, but none of that will be from deep mines in the UK. I think people will look back on this and wonder how we got to this position. I would like the Minister to reflect in her reply on whether she believes that is a rational or sensible state of affairs and on what it says about the Government’s energy policy. I would like her to reflect, too, on how we got here.
The first CCS plant was due to be up and running by 2014. The last Labour Government committed to two to four CCS projects, and agreed a small levy to fund them. At the time, when I was the Secretary of State, I remember the Conservative Opposition criticised me—Oppositions tend to do this—for not being nearly bold enough. They said there should be four projects—never mind two to four—and asked why I was not getting on with it. What then happened is that the coalition Government came to power, dithered for two years and decided to scrap the previous Government’s plan and start all over again. As a result, as the Climate Change Committee noted in its report earlier this week, CCS will be up and running not by 2014 as projected, but by 2020.
That delay has been fatal for Hatfield and the other deep mines in our country. I say that not to score points, but because I hope the Minister will learn lessons for the future. My constituency has an interest in a gas-fired CCS project at Hatfield—the Don Valley project, which has secured European resources. Yesterday I met the director of Sargas Power, which owns the site and is now overseeing the project, and he emphasised above all the need for timely decision making by Ministers, so we cannot afford more dither and delay.
[Source]
17:09
If we look at the history, we find that until 2007 there was no Government Department that even had “energy” in the title—and there had not been since 1992. Why was that? It was because the prevailing assumption had been that energy could be treated more or less like most other markets. Of course, that is all changed by climate change, because without serious intervention by the Government we will not make the low-carbon transition. Part of the incoherence of energy policy at the moment is that we are stuck in a halfway house where at times the Government pretend that this is a market-oriented system, when the truth is that in large part it is not any more.
There is another tension that the Government need to resolve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who drives so much of what the Government do, famously said, referring to climate change,
He has presented environmental progress and a strong economy as being in conflict, but in my opinion he is dead wrong. It is that view that has led to uncertainty, dither and ambiguity in the Government’s approach to the environment. We have seen that in the delays on CCS, and in the recent decision on onshore wind.
[Source]
-
18 Mar 2015: Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
13:52
The Chancellor has been a particularly malign influence in this Government on climate change. The Prime Minister used to claim that he believed in climate change. I have to say that it is extraordinary, even by his standards, to put a wind turbine on your roof and then want a moratorium on wind turbines. I know he is a stranger to consistency, but even by his standards that is going some. We will end the dabbling with climate change denial and have a proper green investment bank.
[Source]
-
17 Nov 2014: G20
16:14
On climate change, I agree with the Prime Minister on the welcome steps made by President Obama and President Xi last week on carbon emissions. I also welcome the agreement to support the climate fund that is designed to help with the effects of climate change. When will the UK announce our contribution to the climate fund, and will the Prime Minister explain why there has been a delay in doing so? What is being done to bring more sceptical countries with us for the ambitious agreement that we need at the vital talks in Paris next year?
[Source]
-
27 Oct 2014: European Council
15:44
I also echo the Prime Minister’s words about Ukraine and support for its Government. On climate change, I welcome the climate and energy package, paving the way for the global UN summit in Paris next year. What action will he be taking in the coming months to encourage other countries, especially China and the United States, to bring forward ambitious targets and policies in advance of that conference?
[Source]
-
11 Jun 2014: G7
The agreement of a new international framework for tackling climate change is very important, and the talks in Paris will be key to that, as will making good on the promise made in Copenhagen on climate finance for developing countries. Can the Prime Minister inform the House how the UK’s preparations for playing a part in that are going and assure us that he is working to secure timely contributions from the other G7 members, because we have tended to be at the front of the pack on this, while others have been less so.
[Source]
-
26 Mar 2014: European Council and Nuclear Security Summit
We welcome the steps that were agreed in efforts to complete the internal energy market, to improve the energy flow across the continent, to strengthen EU tax rules on the exchange of information, and on nuclear proliferation. On climate change, I agree with the Prime Minister on the importance of the EU reaching agreement, if possible in advance of the UN climate leaders summit in September. The EU has shown leadership on this issue before. Some countries in the EU have doubts about the strength of the 40% target, but it is a target that we support and I know he supports, and he will have our support in pushing for maximum ambition on this issue.
[Source]
-
26 Feb 2014: Engagements
12:04
As the immediate threat of floods passes, there are still thousands out of their homes; parts of the Somerset levels are still under water; and hundreds of businesses and farms are still struggling to recover. The Committee on Climate Change, the House of Commons Library and the UK Statistics Authority have all now said that Government investment in flood defences has fallen. In the light of this and of the events we have seen, does the Prime Minister think it is right to revisit the plans for investment in flood defences?
[Source]
12:07
First, let me say to the Prime Minister that if it is a simple choice between the UK Statistics Authority and him, people will believe the UK Statistics Authority on what has happened. The assessment of how much to invest in flood defence depends significantly on an assessment of the risks posed by man-made climate change. In opposition, he said this about climate change:
“but it’s only clear you mean it when you do the tough things as well. Like telling the truth about climate change.”
So what is the truth about climate change?
[Source]
What total nonsense, and the Prime Minister knows it. It is very interesting, because someone who in opposition wanted to talk as much as he could about climate change is now desperate to get off the subject. I asked him a question: will he just set out for his party and for the country his views on man-made climate change?
[Source]
12:10
Excellent; we are getting somewhere. I agree with what the Prime Minister said about the importance of climate change. The reason this matters is that people in the most important positions in his Government are going around questioning climate change. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said:
and he refuses to be briefed on climate change. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), when asked about climate change, said:
“You are not going to draw me on that. I’ve not had time to get into the…climate change debate.”
That is the Energy Minister! Will the Prime Minister clarify his position? Is he happy to have climate change deniers in his Government?
[Source]
The whole country will have heard that the Prime Minister cannot answer the question about whether people need to believe in man-made climate change to be part of his Government. He has gone from thinking that it was a basic part of his credo to thinking that it is a matter of individual conscience. He used to claim that it was his passion above all else. Here’s the thing: if we are properly to protect— [ Interruption. ]
[Source]
12:12
Here’s the thing: if we are properly to protect the British people against the threats that they face, we cannot have doubt and confusion in the Government on the issue of climate change. The Prime Minister needs to rediscover the courage of his past convictions and tell his party to get real on climate change.
[Source]
-
12 Feb 2014: Engagements
12:08
Similarly, on the issue of spending on flood defence, the Committee on Climate Change says that we are spending significantly less on flood defence than we should. My question is a simple one: given yesterday’s promise to make sure that we have a
[Source]
The simple point that I am making to him is that there are real doubts about that when it comes to making members of the Environment Agency who deal with flooding redundant and the Committee on Climate Change—the expert body that is charged with this—says that the investment in flood defences is not happening. He needs to reconsider those things.
[Source]
-
5 Feb 2014: Engagements
I have to say to the Prime Minister that the figures actually show that investment by the Government has fallen not risen over the period, but the reality is that the scale of the challenge we face from climate change and floods demands that we have that comprehensive look at the investment that is required. I am glad that the Prime Minister has said the Environment Secretary will come to the House tomorrow.
[Source]
-
8 Jan 2014: Engagements
Given the scale of risk exposed by these floods and the expected impact of climate change, will the Prime Minister also commit to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs providing a report by the end of this month, providing a full assessment of the future capability of our flood defences and flood response agencies and of whether the investment plans in place are equal to the need for events of this kind?
[Source]
-
30 Oct 2013: Engagements
12:09
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about what people are saying, his own former Tory Environment Secretary, the man he put in charge of the Climate Change Committee, says his figures are false. That is what he says. Instead of having a review, the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to do something for the public next week. He has an Energy Bill going through Parliament. Instead of sitting on his hands, he could amend that Bill to institute a price freeze now. We will support a price freeze: why does he not act?
[Source]
-
10 Apr 2013: Tributes to Baroness Thatcher
14:47
She was right. In foreign policy, she was right to defend the Falklands and bravely reach out to new leadership in the Soviet Union, and something often forgotten is that she was the first political leader in any major country to warn of the dangers of climate change, long before anyone thought of hugging a husky.
[Source]
-
7 Mar 2012: Diamond Jubilee
On one occasion, I attended a meeting of the Privy Council shortly after Buckingham palace had shown its commitment to fighting climate change by adopting energy-saving light bulbs. I believe that I was the Minister responsible. Unfortunately, the transition had not been entirely smooth because the light was pretty dim—in fact, it was almost dark.
As Her Majesty valiantly struggled through the gloom to read the names of the Bills being passed, she caught my eye fixedly and remarked on the impact of “these new bulbs”. As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I confessed my responsibility, but I am pleased to say that she broke into a smile. Her reaction showed once again her great capacity to put people at ease, no matter what the circumstances.
[Source]
-
7 Feb 2011: EU Council and North Africa
15:43
Let me ask the Prime Minister two questions about the way in which our policy at home relates to the discussions in Europe. First, we note the Council’s conclusions on the importance of renewable energy. May I ask the Prime Minister to update the House on the implementation of the renewable heat incentive, which is a crucial part of his renewable energy strategy? It was due to come into force in April this year, but has now been delayed. Can the Prime Minister tell us when it will be introduced?
[Source]
-
1 Nov 2010: European Council
On Europe, Labour Members think that it is in the national interest for Britain to be strongly engaged in Europe on issues from terrorism to climate change, and from the global economy to human trafficking. We all know that the Prime Minister is in a slightly tricky predicament on Europe. He has his old friends and his new friends on the Front Bench. I want to tell him very sincerely that we are here to help him. We know that he held some pretty strong views on Europe in the past, but we are willing to ignore his previous convictions, just as long as he is as well.
Thirdly, on the Cancun conference on climate change, I have to say—I think the Prime Minister will agree—that the prospects do not look bright for completing the unfinished work of Copenhagen. May I urge him on to show greater leadership on this issue— [Interruption.] Leadership, which is not just about some huskies, but is real leadership on this issue. Can he say what he will be doing personally to advance a deal on finance, which is a crucial precondition of progress and a key objective of the Cancun summit?
The Prime Minister has obviously not learned the lesson, because he left the summit bragging again, saying that he was a Euroscpetic. When will he recognise that anti-European bluster and PR are no substitute for a decent, engaged European policy? He should be leading the way on climate change, signing the directive on human trafficking, and working with European Governments to sustain demand in the global economy. The Prime Minister may have abandoned some of his previous convictions, but his rehabilitation on Europe has a long way to go.
[Source]
-
27 Jul 2010: Annual Energy Statement
12:43
Will the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change explain once and for all, because it has not been explained before, why, given that it was a loan, given that the money was set aside, given that there was value for money as judged by the independent panel that looks at these issues, he cancelled that loan? Why has he taken the £1 billion away from the green investment bank? We set aside resources from the sale of High Speed 1 towards the green investment bank and he has taken that money away. So the right hon. Gentleman is going backwards, too, on the question of our industrial future.
[Source]
-
24 Jun 2010: Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will say that because he wants to do good things at the Department of Energy and Climate Change—I do not doubt his good intentions—it was worth paying the price of supporting a Budget that he would have opposed before the election. That is the reality of the situation.
[Source]
The grant to Sheffield Forgemasters would have given us the ability to make key components for the nuclear industry that currently have to be sourced from outside Britain, but the Government have turned their back on it. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who is in the Chamber, is an honourable guy whom I respect, because he supports nuclear power—that is slightly complicated given his Secretary of State—but during a debate on Tuesday, he said about Sheffield Forgemasters:
[Source]
That is not a very good start, but I want to reassure the Secretary of State by telling him that there is praise for the Budget from an unlikely quarter. Roger Helmer, a Conservative MEP and a well known climate change denier, quite likes the Budget and says:
[Source]
The doublespeak just gets worse. The Conservatives spend the election attacking the Labour Government for putting up national insurance contributions on employees, then they produce their own Budget which is regressive and unfair, then they realise that that will be pretty damaging for them, so they take credit for a measure that they used to attack. That cannot possibly make sense. The truth is that the Chancellor made a claim in his Budget speech that the Budget was progressive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, to which the Chancellor referred in his Budget speech, has said clearly that if one looks at the measures announced in the Budget one sees that it is a regressive Budget—and not just regressive, but deeply regressive, because the poorest 10% pay three and a half times more than the richest 10%. However much they may twist and turn with the help of their new friend, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who is auditioning to be a member of the Conservative party, it will not help them. People can smell it. People can see through the doublespeak.
[Source]
I am coming to them in a minute. That has been the case historically, but the difference this time is that the Liberal Democrats are faced with a choice. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—someone I respect; a person of good conscience who came into politics to make our country fairer—has a big decision to make. He is not going to fall for the stuff we have heard from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, trying to explain away the Budget.
[Source]
-
14 Jun 2010: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
The gulf oil spill is an environmental wake-up call for the world. Just as the banking crisis changed the rules of the game for financial services, so this disaster must change the rules of the game across the world for energy policy. That requires strong leadership—including being tough with our allies—in defending British interests, in pushing the United States for a Bill on climate change and in charting a course towards the low-carbon transition. If the Government provide that strong leadership for BP employees, pension fundholders and our environment, we will of course support them.
[Source]
-
27 May 2010: Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The issue at the heart of this Gracious Speech, in this area and in many others, is whether the Government can provide the long-term direction that the country needs. In the area of climate change and energy, above all others, the country needs a clear sense of direction. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had different positions on some key issues at the election. I suppose we cannot blame them for that, as they did not know they would end up in bed together, but the test will be whether they produce a coherent long-term plan on those areas of disagreement or simply try to paper over the cracks, and thus fail to provide the long-term direction the country needs. We should set three tests: whether the new Government have a coherent strategy to deliver on the transition to low-carbon energy, whether they have a plan to secure a green industrial future for Britain and whether they have a commitment to make the transition fair.
Let me address the biggest challenge of all, which is the pre-condition of all other challenges on climate change that we face—the need to take carbon out of our electricity supplies. Our answer, in the low carbon transition plan we published last summer, which I hope was a plan for a decade, was the trinity of low-carbon fuels—clean coal, renewables and nuclear. On clean coal, I am pleased that the coalition agreement supports our investment and the levy that went through the House, as well as the tough coal conditions that we introduced, which are the toughest in the world.
[Source]
On clean coal, I think the Government are broadly in agreement with our plans, but what about renewables, which are the second part of the trinity of low carbon that we need? The Conservatives said in their manifesto that they agreed with our target of 15% renewable energy by 2020. The Liberal Democrats said they wanted a figure of about 40% by 2020, which I think is completely unrealistic. How have they resolved that difference? The new Government do not seem to have a target. They have 15% as a baseline, but say that they want the figure to be higher, and they have referred the issue to the Committee on Climate Change. There is a deeper problem here, because the Government say they want a larger target, but they are not willing to support the measures needed even to deliver existing targets. The Secretary of State made much of our record on renewables. We are the world leader in offshore wind generation, but it is true that we lag behind on onshore wind. However there is one very good reason for that, and he knows it as well as I do—most wind farm applications are blocked by Conservative councils. One might put it this way:
[Source]
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will be very grateful for that help from his right hon. Friend, but I do not think that that is enough. Let me explain why. I gave that quote not to embarrass him, but to raise a very important issue.
[Source]
We said in our manifesto that every council should have a local target to help meet the overall 15% target for the country as a whole—not that they should have a disproportionate target, but that they should make a contribution to the overall target. The Conservatives, including the right hon. Lady, were against that, but I thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of our strategy. I attended a Guardian debate on climate change with the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) during the election, and he said that he supported my policy. By the way, I regret that he is not in the Government, because I think they are poorer without him. Now, what do we see in the coalition document? The Tories have won the argument: there will be no local obligation to contribute to the national target, because of the abolition of regional strategies. So what is it? It is a charter for every council to be able to say, “Not in my back yard.” The Secretary of State said in his first interview in The Times that he is going to build 15,000 wind turbines—he is going to make a start by putting seven on his own houses—but that will not happen without a strategy, and so far, I see no strategy from him.
[Source]
Let us move on to the next part of delivering the low-carbon agenda: nuclear power, which was a very small feature of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. He spoke one line through gritted teeth about nuclear power. I wonder why. I think that I know the reason. Let us be clear that our position on nuclear power is that the challenge of climate change is so great that we need nuclear as well as renewables and clean coal, because the challenge of climate change is so big. That is the position of the vast majority of Conservative Members––they are nodding away, which is great because we agree with them.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), is instructive on the issue. He said about nuclear investment that
The right hon. Gentleman seems to have passed responsibility for new nuclear power to his deputy, the hon. Member for Wealden. The responsibilities of the Department of Energy and Climate Change have come out and the Secretary of State seems to have abdicated responsibility for this issue. Delivering on new nuclear power is a very big task that needs the personal role of the Secretary of State. I used to chair the Nuclear Development Forum, bringing together all the different partners in industry to drive things forward and ensure that we would deliver on time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about abdicating responsibility to the Minister of State, much as I admire him.
[Source]
Yes, I can, because we have learned the lessons of Britain’s past on nuclear power, as well as international lessons. What have we said? For example, we said that companies will have to put aside money to cover legacy waste. I honestly believe that that is necessary. That is not to say that nuclear power has no challenges, but the challenge of climate change is far bigger, and we reject the alternatives at our peril.
[Source]
but now the Government want to scrap it. And who gets to make the decision on new nuclear plants under the new system? None other than the Secretary of State, because politicians have retaken control, but he has a policy in which even the coalition agreement does not have confidence. On the essential test of the long-term direction on climate change—on how we decarbonise our energy supply—I fear that the Government are already failing.
[Source]
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and he prefigures the next part of my speech, because the second test is whether we can show that low carbon is about not just climate change, but the future of our economy. To his credit, the Secretary of State talked about the importance of an industrial strategy.
[Source]
In the months ahead, we will hold the Government to account on delivery, because it is in the interests of everyone in this country that we deliver on fairness, on jobs, on energy security and on climate change.
[Source]
-
8 Apr 2010: Housing (Energy Efficiency)
Yes, I can give that assurance. I thank my hon. Friend for his championing of these issues. Over the past 18 months or two years, we have seen an increasing understanding of the reality of the connection between tackling climate change and green jobs in this country. We have seen that with announcements on the offshore wind industry, electric cars and a whole host of other matters. He is right that Government support for private sector business is essential in this area.
[Source]
-
8 Apr 2010: Electricity Demand/Capacity
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question, but I profoundly disagree with the second part of his question. When we look at the scale of the task in terms of low-carbon energy, we have very ambitious targets on renewables—approximately a sixfold increase in renewable energy by 2020—and nuclear must be part of the energy mix. We need to move on all fronts—nuclear, renewables and clean coal—because the scale of the challenge of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent. by 2050 is so enormous that we need every form of low-carbon energy.
[Source]
Let me start by saying that I have also enjoyed our exchanges. The hon. Gentleman shadowed me when I was the Minister for the Third Sector and since then when I have been Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change. I look forward to him continuing to shadow me in his present post after the general election.
[Source]
-
8 Apr 2010: Climate Change Conference (Cancun)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We do want to move to the 30 per cent. target for Europe as part of an ambitious global deal. I also agree with his remarks about the UN, and there is an opportunity to upgrade the UN post in charge of the UN framework convention on climate change. As for the hon. Gentleman’s other point, I was shocked to read in the Financial Times that only a handful of the 206 Conservative candidates who were contacted accepted the unequivocal reality of man-made climate change. That shows the stakes in respect of climate change at this election.
[Source]
My right hon. Friend is completely right about these issues, and about the importance of showing that we here at home are moving forward as part of getting the ambitious global deal that we need. That commitment to the 15 per cent. renewable energy target is very important. It is also important that we transmit the learning here to other countries so that they can move forward. This is therefore about UK and European commitment as part of an ambitious global deal.
[Source]
I will not say, “Thank you.” The reality of the Conservative party’s record in this Parliament on climate change is that it began with the stunt with the huskies, initiated by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and it ends with the Leader of the Opposition saying, “Here are 10 reasons to vote Conservative,” and not one of them is about climate change. We find out that Conservative candidates have not changed; they do not believe in man-made climate change. So the truth is that we have a whole range of stunts but an unchanged Conservative party, on this issue and every other issue at this general election.
[Source]
The hon. Gentleman has clearly learned nothing during his time as shadow Secretary of State. A list of policies does not make a strategy, and image does not make substance. That is the truth about the Conservative party. Why would the Conservatives put the green transition in this country at risk? For example, they oppose renewables the length and breadth of this country. They oppose the progress that is being made. The difference between the Labour party, and the Labour Government, and the Conservative party is that we have conviction about tackling climate change while it is all about image and detoxifying the brand.
[Source]
-
8 Apr 2010: Topical Questions
Over the past 18 months, my Department has set a new plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent. by 2050; published low carbon transition plan sector by sector for our country; produced a comprehensive plan to help households go green; introduced feed-in tariffs; as well as passing through this House a levy for clean coal. We look forward to continuing our work into the next Parliament.
[Source]
I think that perhaps people were being over-protective; if I had known, I would have been happy to answer the question, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to ask it now. He raises the important issue of the impact that climate change can have on our natural environment and biodiversity. Conservative Members complain about wind turbines, but the bigger threat to the countryside is climate change—that is what could have a real impact on our countryside. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got to ask his question and I agree with the intention behind it.
[Source]
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I recall, there were only five votes against the Climate Change Bill when it went through the House. If those Conservative candidates are successful, there will be less of a consensus on the issue in the House than we had at that time. That is why we need to maintain the consensus and convince everyone around the country that climate change is real, happening and man made.
[Source]
We will miss my hon. Friend, who raises an important issue. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held the first meeting of the high-level panel set up under the Copenhagen accord and set out how we can find $100 billion a year by 2020 to help people in the developing world not just with adaptation to climate change but with mitigation. That speaks to the issues of justice that my hon. Friend asked about and has fought for in the House.
[Source]
-
6 Apr 2010: Beyond Copenhagen (International Climate Change Plan)
On 31 March I published “Beyond Copenhagen: The UK Government’s International Climate Change Plan” (Cm 7850), setting out the key elements of UK strategy leading up to COP16 in Mexico and beyond.
The strategy reflects the fact there is much unfinished business following the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks in December 2009. The conference made significant progress in some areas, but did not live up to our expectations, or those of many countries round the world.
The main achievement at Copenhagen was agreement of the accord. The accord includes commitments to limit global temperature increases to no more than 2° Celsius, to climate finance approaching $30 billion fast-start finance to 2012 with a long-term goal of $100 billion a year by 2020 and for the first time provides a common international framework that includes all the world’s major economies. Since the summit more than 70 countries (accounting for around 80 per cent. of global emissions) have put forward mitigation targets and actions which, if they deliver at the high end of their ambitions, would be consistent with global emissions peaking before 2020, an important step towards achieving an emissions trajectory consistent with 2°.
The document affirms the importance of delivering against the commitments made in the accord. This includes commitments on emissions reductions, forestry, measurement, reporting and verification and on finance. It highlights the importance both of getting fast-start finance flowing and also of the work of the UN Secretary-General’s high-level advisory group on climate finance, co-chaired by the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia.
The Government continue to believe that this action has to be backed by a comprehensive legally binding agreement. The UK wants to see progress in the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) negotiations towards a legally binding agreement, with progress under the Copenhagen accord built on in the formal negotiations. To ease that process we signal that we would agree to an appropriately designed second Kyoto commitment period provided others enter into a comparable legally binding arrangements.
[Source]
-
2 Mar 2010: Household Energy Management
Improving domestic energy efficiency helps people to make their homes more comfortable, to save money on their energy bills and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This strategy sets out a comprehensive approach to helping people do that across all tenure types.
The strategy will deliver greenhouse gas emissions savings of at least 4 million tonnes of CO 2 per annum by 2020, ensuring the UK hits its target of cutting emissions from households by 29 per cent. by 2020.
The strategy sets out our commitment to support people to install cavity wall and loft insulation in every home where practical to do so by 2015, while increasing the volumes of more significant insulation measures. We will help people to install eco-upgrades to their homes—which go beyond basic measures to include solid wall insulation and/or micro-renewable energy generation—in up to 7 million homes by 2020, on the way to ensuring that all homes have benefited from energy efficiency measures by 2030. There will be particular support for vulnerable groups.
[Source]
-
25 Feb 2010: Topical Questions
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his just-in-time questioning. He raises an important issue. Clearly, mistakes have been made, and it is important that those are looked at and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looks at its procedures. I have written to Dr. Pachauri to emphasise our support for the organisation, but also our wish that it looks at its procedures to try to eliminate such errors. The overall picture is very clear: climate change is happening, it is real, and it is man-made. It is very important to say that.
[Source]
The hon. Gentleman makes a point that is central to this debate. We need to be open about the fact that there are costs to acting on climate change, but we know that the costs of not acting would be greater. That central conclusion of the Stern report is important in shaping the climate change debate, and he is right that we should emphasise it.
[Source]
No, we will not. Here we see what people worry about in relation to the Conservative party: an unchanged party, with people saying that climate change does not exist and that we should not go ahead with onshore wind. So no, Labour will not follow the hon. Lady’s advice.
[Source]
-
24 Feb 2010: Energy Bill
I thank Members for their contributions since Second Reading. I particularly thank the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock)—who has done such a fantastic job in leading our work on the Bill—and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), for their able steering of the legislation. I also thank my hon. Friends, and Opposition spokespeople and Back Benchers, for their contributions.
The work that has been done has helped to strengthen the Bill in a number of respects. It has helped in relation to the scope of the CCS incentive, the reporting of progress towards decarbonising our electricity supply, and consumer protection. The relatively speedy passage of the Bill has been due partly to the able work done in Committee, and partly because it was designed as a short Bill that could make swift progress before a general election. Our task now is to send the Bill to the other place so that it can make further progress.
[Source]
The first and most important part of the Bill from Labour’s point of view relates to the CCS incentive. However, we are aware that the low-carbon transition involves costs, and it is important for us to take all the action we can to protect consumers from those costs. There have been significant advances recently, such as those for people on prepayment meters; a number of Members have raised that matter in the House. A year ago, people on prepayment meters paid £41 more for their energy than standard credit customers; today that differential has, effectively, been eliminated.
It is a short Bill, but it puts in place important measures in respect of the transition to low carbon. The CCS levy delivers an unprecedented amount of investment, not just in Britain but around the world, into CCS, which is a crucial technology for the future. The strengthening of the powers of the regulator is essential moving forward, as we face upward pressures on prices. There is also specific support for the most vulnerable.
[Source]
-
13 Jan 2010: Energy Security
I agree with my hon. Friend. The European supergrid is an exciting prospect that will obviously require co-operation in Europe—as well as sitting in the European Parliament with people who tend to believe that climate change is real and happening, rather than those who do not.
[Source]
-
7 Jan 2010: Carbon Capture and Storage
We are currently evaluating two bids to select, which will receive funding from the £90 million set aside for the front-end engineering and design stage, with the result to be announced shortly. This is one of the four demonstration projects to which we are committed, funded by the levy for carbon capture and storage under the Energy Bill, which will ensure the largest investment in CCS of any country in the world.
[Source]
This is a line that the Opposition like to peddle, but it is absolutely untrue. One need only look at what has happened since 2007. We have had the pre-qualification phase and the application phase for these projects. Hundreds of pages of applications have come into our Department and are being scrutinised, as one would expect in any procurement project. We have a CCS levy before this House; we have agreement in Europe for up to 12 demonstration projects, pushed by the United Kingdom; we have a commitment in this country to four demonstration projects, which we have not had before; and we have legislation in the Energy Bill for the storage of carbon dioxide from CCS projects. We are making progress. Indeed, there is as yet no post-combustion project in the world on the scale that we are talking about in this country.
[Source]
-
7 Jan 2010: Copenhagen Conference
We now see the Conservative party trying to play politics with international climate change—exactly what happened on Tuesday, in response to my statement—which is deeply regrettable. We are working in the European Union to deal with the problem of illegal logging, but we will also look at any other proposal that is put forward.
[Source]
My hon. Friend draws attention to an important issue. Over the coming months we will need to work to use the EU’s commitment to move from 20 to 30 per cent., to lever in higher ambition from others. The commitment that the EU has made is an important one. I will be working intensively in the coming weeks, before the 31 January deadline for commitments to be lodged in the Copenhagen accord, to see how far we can get in Europe on that commitment. We have existing advice from the Climate Change Committee on the costs and benefits of moving to a higher figure—and in fact, as a result of the recession, the costs of doing so have fallen.
[Source]
-
7 Jan 2010: Carbon Capture And Storage
The International Energy Agency estimates that carbon capture and storage could contribute up to 20 per cent. of the cuts needed in greenhouse gases by 2050. Without CCS, the cost of emission reduction needed to meet climate change targets globally would increase by more than 70 per cent. The four demonstration projects we are planning and those around the world will provide more information on the effectiveness of the technology.
[Source]
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the private sector can play a role in this, but the risks relating to this new technology—and, indeed, the gains—do not justify one company making the kind of investment required. That is why we are introducing the carbon capture and storage levy, which will provide a stream of funding for CCS over the next two decades. It is the largest such investment in the world.
[Source]
I am always enthusiastic, as one of my hon. Friends has just helpfully pointed out. We should look at all the technologies that exist. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because he, among others in the House, is a great advocate of carbon capture and storage and the role that it can play. Britain is uniquely placed in relation to CCS because of the North sea.
[Source]
We are planning four demonstration projects funded by the CCS levy. We have also successfully argued for money to be set aside for up to 10 demonstration projects across Europe, and we are working with countries across the world on moving forward CCS technology.
[Source]
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—across all regions there are opportunities relating to low carbon and, in a number of regions, relating to carbon capture and storage. We shall shortly look at where the CCS clusters can be, and how we can take proper industrial advantage of CCS. Estimates suggest that tens of thousands of jobs could be created in this area.
[Source]
-
7 Jan 2010: Topical Questions
On the question of the third runway, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has seen the report from the Committee on Climate Change, which shows that we have a clear target for carbon emissions from aviation and explains how it can be accommodated within constrained demand from aviation. Our policy is not one of unconstrained demand, but nor does it assume that we will somehow freeze the amount of flying that people do. That is not realistic, and it would not be good for our economy. It would not be good for our society either, because many more people are emigrating to this country and will want to travel for business and other purposes.
[Source]
My right hon. Friend, who has been a great fighter for the co-operative movement, is entirely right. Community ownership plays a very important role. The feed-in tariff will also help to encourage communities to come forward with their own proposals for renewable energy.
[Source]
I pay tribute to the community my hon. Friend represents and to the people of St. Margaret’s for what they are doing. The low-carbon communities challenge has been a great success in terms of the number of applications received, and we want to help as many communities as possible to be trailblazers for low carbon, showing how the transition to it can make a difference to people’s lives through the introduction of smart meters, insulation, renewable energy and a whole range of other measures. All this is part of the positive vision that we must offer for tackling climate change.
[Source]
From memory, I think we have said that by 2020 the climate change policies will add about 8 per cent. as a whole to energy bills. I say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that there is no high-carbon, low-cost future out there, because the truth is that if we want to have secure energy, we also need low-carbon energy—renewable and nuclear energy. So, yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route. However, it is also right that we take measures to protect the most vulnerable.
[Source]
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. One of the things we are doing is a mapping exercise across the country to see which are the most appropriate areas for wind farms; that will help local authorities. I applaud local authorities that embrace renewable energy—those that say no to it everywhere are doing the wrong thing—but of course, local authorities need to be able to take decisions about the most appropriate places for wind energy facilities, and indeed they do.
[Source]
-
5 Jan 2010: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about December’s Copenhagen climate change conference, at which I represented the United Kingdom alongside my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Today I want to report back to the House and set out where we go next in the global battle against climate change.
The Copenhagen accord, which is available in the Library, was agreed by a group representing 49 developed and developing countries that together account for more than 80 per cent. of global emissions. The key points of the accord are as follows. It endorses the limit of 2° C in warming as the benchmark for global progress on climate change. Unlike with every previous agreement, not just developed, but all leading developing countries have agreed to make specific commitments to tackling emissions, to be lodged in the agreement by 31 January.
We also welcome the decision by Chancellor Merkel to host a conference as part of the mid-year negotiations in Bonn, and we will work with the incoming Mexican presidency, which will be hosting the next conference in November. But dialogue and negotiations need to restart before June—something I made clear to Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the convention on climate change when I met him in London just before Christmas.
I want to pay tribute in particular to the enormous effort of those in the UK, from the scientific community, civil society, British business and the general public, who have mobilised on climate change. Their ideas and energy helped to drive us forward over the past 12 months and during the Copenhagen conference itself. Let me assure them and the House that we are determined to strengthen and sustain the momentum behind the low-carbon transition in the UK. Building on our low-carbon transition plan, our world-leading policy on coal and our plans for nuclear, we will be making further announcements in the coming weeks and months on energy generation, household energy efficiency and transport. Following Copenhagen, as part of the work already ongoing on the road map to 2050, we are looking at whether further action is necessary to meet our low-carbon obligations, and we will report back by the time of the Budget. This will include looking at the advice of the Committee on Climate Change published last autumn.
Internationally, thanks in large part to the deadline of Copenhagen and the mobilisation behind it, every major economy of the world now has domestic policy goals and commitments to limit its greenhouse gas emissions, including the United States, China, Japan, Russia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa and, of course, the EU. Throughout the world, policy is now set to improve energy efficiency, to increase investment in low-carbon power, to develop hybrid and electric vehicles and smart grids, and to reduce deforestation.
So although Copenhagen did not meet our expectations, 2009 did see the start of a new chapter in tackling climate change across the world. This global shift might not yet have found international legal form, but scientific evidence, public opinion and business opportunity have made it irreversible. In 2010 and in the years ahead, this Government—and, I am sure, the vast majority in this House—are determined to ensure that we redouble our efforts to complete the unfinished business of Copenhagen.
Climate change remains the biggest global challenge to humankind, and it requires a global solution. We owe it to our children, their children and the generations to come to find it. The work has started, it will continue this year, and I believe that it will succeed. The fight against climate change will be won. I commend this statement to the House.
[Source]
I am all for slogans about the need for a new politics of climate change and all that, although I will have to talk to the hon. Gentleman at some point about what that means. I think it best to build on the progress made at Copenhagen—although it was disappointing—and, more important, the progress made over the last year, and to use the opportunities that we shall have in the coming year to secure the agreement that we did not secure at Copenhagen.
[Source]
Let me take this opportunity to say that I know that the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he is leaving this House. We will miss his expertise and passion on these issues of climate change, and we wish him well in what he does next.
[Source]
I can hardly believe that question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The weather fluctuates, as anyone knows, and the notion that a cold spell in Britain disproves the science of climate change is something that I believe not even the right hon. Gentleman believes.
[Source]
The hon. Gentleman speaks with authority on these issues. China has moved some distance in the past two years on climate change. The very notion of a target—it set out a target of 40 to 45 per cent. reductions in carbon intensity—is important. We look forward to seeing what it lodges as part of the agreement on 31 January. We face a continuing effort, and we are determined to continue with it, to persuade China that a legal undertaking should give it confidence about others meeting their commitments, and that it will not face the constraints on growth and development that it fears. That is part of the persuasion that we need.
The new coalition that was evident at Copenhagen between the developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change—I mentioned Ethiopia and the Maldives, but there were others including other small island states and African countries—is important. That coalition wants a legal agreement. We need to find ways in which that voice can be heard and to persuade others who are more reluctant that it is the right way to go.
[Source]
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is very important that we make progress on carbon capture and storage, including in Yorkshire, where there are exciting plans to move forward on that process. It is also worth saying that internationally many countries are moving towards carbon capture and storage. Again, that is a change we have seen over the past couple of years; countries understand the importance CCS will play and the importance of making coal a clean fuel of the future.
[Source]
No, I do not think that I should give the impression that it was a problem of process. At a meeting early on in the negotiations, I said that every country faced compelling constraints that inhibited action on climate change. If there is a reason why we did not reach the agreement that we wanted, it is that every country faced those compelling constraints and we could not overcome them sufficiently. It was not an accident and there was no question, simply, of a badly organised meeting. There are difficult issues, but I come back to this point: the past year has shown that such compelling constraints can be overcome, and we need to spend the months and years ahead overcoming the other constraints that countries faced at Copenhagen.
[Source]