• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Luke Taylor's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate

We've found 15 Parliamentary debates in which Luke Taylor has spoken about climate-related matters.

Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.

• 9 Jun 2026: Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

  14:40

  Slot alleviation on its own cannot be considered the solution to fuel resilience issues; other action is needed. The Government must outline what other steps they will take to ensure the continued, resilient supply and availability of jet fuel in the UK. That includes going further and faster on the adoption and scaling up of sustainable aviation fuel projects, so that the UK is able to secure supplies of SAF and both ensure the lack of disruption to flights and enable further decarbonisation of aviation.

  [Source]

• 18 Mar 2026: Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

  15:33

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate. Engagement without condition is not diplomacy; it is complicity. Promoting the values of democracy, respect for the rule of law and protection of religious freedoms must be the cornerstone of any serious British foreign policy, particularly foreign policy with a country that has outright rejected the values of democracy. Yes, China is a major global power, and yes, Britain must engage with it on trade, climate change and the great shared challenges of our time, but engagement cannot come at the cost of our principles, because when we trade away our values, we diminish not only ourselves but the very idea of Britain as a force for good in the world—an idea that has already taken a solid beating in recent years after the last Government’s cuts to the Department for International Development and this Government’s refusal to reverse them.

  [Source]

• 27 Jan 2026: Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support

  To genuinely rescue people from the cold, we must tackle the real cost of energy now. That is why we need a social tariff to provide targeted energy discounts for vulnerable households, including those on low incomes and in receipt of personal independence payment. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for the renewables obligation levy to be removed from people’s energy bills and instead funded by a proper windfall tax until April 2027—after which the Government should develop a new way of funding RO contracts, implementing Liberal Democrat proposals to move them on to a contracts-for-difference model. That would decouple energy prices from the wholesale gas prices and ensure that ordinary people across the country can benefit from cheap renewable energy.

  I am sorry not to see any Reform MPs here, although it is not a surprise; it was written down here in my notes. They deserve to be told once again that net zero does not mean higher energy costs. How we fund our energy transition is a political choice. They are choosing to remain wedded to the very system that has left us so vulnerable and Britons literally freezing to death in their own homes, rather than making sure that the fat cats pay their fair share towards keeping people in this country alive.

  [Source]

• 11 Dec 2025: Oil Refining Sector

  15:57

  At times of great upheaval and change, it is tempting to look to political leaders, artists or other major cultural figures to get a sense of where the world is headed. That is certainly a popular approach among historians, but I think it misses something: the often pivotal role of engineers—and I say that not just because I am one myself, or was. It is not necessary to subscribe to an entirely materialistic view of history to recognise that engineers, no matter who they work for or where they work, are often at the vanguard of the kind of technological change that enables our wider political or social ambitions to be achieved. That was true at the cusp of the industrial revolution; it was true when the white heat of technology exploded the middle class in the ’50s; and it is true now, perhaps more than ever, as we embark on the mission to undo the damage to our environment that previous technological shifts have wrought. We must secure our energy supply so that we can withstand an ever more uncertain future, and transform our late-industrial malaise into a green, prosperous and abundant economy through a truly just transition.

  Earlier this year, Liberal Democrat colleagues and I recognised the importance of the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. Sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, will be one of the main enablers of aviation’s transition from polluting liquid fossil fuels to a future of hydrogen, battery and hybrid zero emission power plants. As part of that transition, SAF has a huge role to play in creating new green jobs and delivering on our energy security goals.

  The Greens seem willing to turn their back on any of the major technologies involved in the just transition of our fossil fuel infrastructure. They are locked into the pursuit of an ideological purity that sees those companies and producers solely as the problem and not as part of the solution. Reform’s static, stagnant and staggering belief that net zero is either bound to hurt working people or just bad in and of itself, only gives them the self-satisfied and smug smile of someone who thinks they know all the answers, but that could not be further from the truth.

  [Source]

  16:03

  Similarly, opening hydrogen storage subsidies to include liquid fuel infrastructure would ensure that existing assets could play a role in the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen storage is critical, but hydrogen production and usage are also critical to our future renewable goals and to providing the supply of SAF that will be required to decarbonise aviation. DFT rules state that, to make compliant SAF in the UK, hydrogen must be green hydrogen—rightly—and cannot be supported by the hydrogen production business model, a scheme established by DESNZ to get UK hydrogen production off the ground. That alone is not controversial. However, there is no green hydrogen available in the UK that will not be supported by the HPBM, which means that a portion of SAF using these renewable molecules will be uncompliant and, essentially, very expensive fossil jet fuel, despite it actually being green. I convey to the Minister the ask from industry that the DFT and DESNZ should be urgently working together to ensure interconnectivity with hydrogen policy and SAF policy, so that SAF producers are not penalised for using domestic industry?

  [Source]

  16:06

  I know that the hon. Member has a lot of knowledge on this issue. I think that looking at all the options that maintain capability is critical. What might come out of this is an ask for this Minister— or potentially the aviation Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—to sit down with our APPG, in which there is a lot of expertise, to talk about some of the ways that we can maintain capability but also achieve our transition and net zero goals.

  To unlock further investment in the infrastructure and ensure a just transition, industry is calling for long-term policy signals, such as extending and increasing renewable fuel mandates; targeted incentives like business rates relief and payment holidays for new infrastructure; inclusive subsidy schemes for hydrogen storage; and fast-tracking obligations for renewable liquid heating fuels.

  The Liberal Democrats urge the Government fully to grasp the opportunities that our industrial capacity and workforce capability offer our country, to lead the world in a transition to next-generation fuels and energy. It is in our blood and our tradition as a country to grapple with these big technological questions, so it should be up to us to show what real leadership on the just transition looks like—not just because great feats of engineering are impressive in their own right, which they are, but because a whole generation of people whose lives and careers have been shaped by our oil refineries and wider energy sector, and future generations, are counting on that leadership. In recent years, the Conservatives abandoned it. We urgently need to get it back and provide stability for the communities most affected.

  Home-grown, local renewable energy and fuels can be clean, cheap and popular, and they embed resilience. The Government must work with industry because striving for theoretical perfection, rather than ambitious but deliverable policy, risks choking the sector and neutering this revolution. Our engineers and industry stand ready to deliver, as they have done time and again, the greener economy that we need and that communities up and down the country deserve.

  [Source]

• 15 Oct 2025: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

  16:27

  In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; however, when non-CO2 effects are included, its contribution to climate warming increases to approximately 4%. Although that is a small fraction of global emissions, it is not insignificant. However, in my experience, few sectors take their role in bringing down emissions and tackling climate change as seriously as aviation, primarily because fuel burnt and emissions released is money spent.

  As other Members have already made clear, decarbonising aviation and achieving net zero carbon UK aviation will require a huge range of different measures. Measures such as Operation Blue Skies, a global contrail avoidance system, will reduce the density of the heat-trapping contrails produced by aircraft, which creates nearly half the overall climate-warming impacts. Continuing improvements in aircraft engine and airframe efficiency are also critical, and that too has been mentioned by others.

  [Source]

• 17 Jul 2025: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

  The Minister has spoken about the tonnage from SAF, but the real question is whether statistics and information will be available on the sources of each of those SAF types, so that we can examine how each of the various streams of SAF production are contributing and also understand the net carbon benefit. He has talked about the carbon production from the burning, but we need to see the detail of the SAF streams to understand the benefits and the progress towards decarbonisation in more detail. Is that something the Government might consider?

  [Source]

• 15 Jul 2025: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

  10:39

  On renewable energy, last year the Sustainable Aviation road map made it quite clear that 3G SAF—where you basically electrolyse water to get hydrogen and you capture CO 2 from the atmosphere—is going to take a lot of renewable electricity. We are going to need a lot more of that within the UK if we are going to support a domestic power-to-liquid market.

  Luke Ervine: In addition to that, we need to think about other areas of SAF, when we talk about SAF having a nominal value associated with its ability to reduce greenhouse gases. We are working alongside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Business and Trade to understand how carbon can form part of the solution, and decarbonising the SAF that we are producing is also key. We are also working side by side with the Treasury to understand what the revenues from the ETS look like.

  [Source]

  10:47

  Jonathon Counsell: I will answer the risk question. Yes, without the policy, we have no 2G SAF, so we would be dependent on the 1G market, which will cap out in the early 2030s. We are not going to achieve our decarbonisation targets without 2G SAF. That is the biggest risk without the Bill.

  The biggest risk with the Bill is buy-out. If the incentive does not produce enough SAF—we understand the buy-out is there to manage short-term supply shortages, but if we have long-term buy-out, which we have seen in the ground transport fuels market—that is policy failure. Essentially, that huge cost is £6,000 per tonne of SAF, and if that cost comes straight back to the airline, it will go on air fares, but you do not get any decarbonisation—you get huge cost and no decarbonisation. That is our biggest risk.

  I would not say SAF is popular—that is probably going a step too far. It is fair to say there is greater acceptance of SAF as a solution, but let us be clear: nobody wants to pay for it. However, we accept that there is a cost to the net zero transition, and our job is to minimise that cost as far as possible.

  [Source]

  11:04

  Noaman Al Adhami: From our perspective, the route we are using—the Fischer-Tropsch synthetic paraffinic kerosene route—is an American Society for Testing and Materials route that is approved already. On sustainability, the feedstock criteria are well defined in the SAF mandate. All the types of feedstock that are eligible to produce SAF are well defined. We are complying with that. The greenhouse gas and carbon intensity are other factors for measuring sustainability. For our project, without carbon capture, we are at minus 80% or minus 85% from the fossil equivalent. With carbon capture, we will go negative—we will go to even more than minus 200%. That is key for us.

  [Source]

• 15 Jul 2025: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)

  What is happening in the aviation area is clearer cut, because you cannot get the energy density into an aircraft with hydrogen or electric, so it is kind of obvious, but I think it is a solution for a lot of the fossil-based fuels, including gasoline and diesel. I think what we will end up doing is that, if we can develop that core technology, it is then transferable to other sectors, and with that we will be able to deal with the real problem, which is the end-to-end solution of getting renewable energy to the consumer. That is the real challenge.

  At the moment, we are talking about sustainable aviation fuel, but actually there is a lot of energy in the North sea that is not getting used because of the challenge of the cost of getting it from there to the consumer. This is where e-fuels come in. The Bill would help to move us in the right direction to start to tackle that problem, because you would have these companies with the new tech working out how to make that viable. There is a very good, well researched paper by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the US and the Department of Energy. It was done back in 2021.

  I had a conversation with our CEO and the board one day and realised, “We’re not actually a fuels company, although we’re called Zero Petroleum and we’re making jet fuel and gasoline. We’re actually an energy transmission company, because all the problems we have with renewable energy are solved by liquid hydrocarbons”. If you look at the paper I referred to, done back in 2021, the cost of getting energy from the North sea in a cable to the consumer is probably forty to fiftyfold what it is if you wanted to do it with a liquid hydrocarbon. That is the fundamental problem that we are going to struggle with going forward. We are slowly going to morph as technology and engineering rather than policy dictate what the solution is.

  [Source]

  Doug McKiernan: Correct. Within that report, there were also comparisons to hydrogen—that was a sixfold increase over a two-foot oil pipeline—and to ethanol, methanol and ammonia. It looked at how you get energy from A to B in the cheapest operational expenditure and capital expenditure form. That is a fundamental. The cost of getting the renewable energy is what all the engineering will come back to. I believe the renewable energy will be in remote locations, a bit like oil today. Ultimately, we are going to put renewable energy in those places. Hopefully we do not cover all the fertile soil with solar panels and we can generate it elsewhere, and then use the power-to-liquids to get it from A to B.

  [Source]

  Q My question is relatively straightforward: does the Bill go far enough to allow us to proceed with aviation expansion and be consistent with our climate change goals?

  Matt Gorman: This Bill is part of a package of measures from the Government, and I think it is absolutely vital. I see the Bill and the SAF mandate as equally important, with the SAF mandate driving a requirement for 10% SAF and with the Bill encouraging investment in domestic production. Those are vital tools, and the Government are taking a range of other steps. I am not here as a spokesperson for the Government, but the jet zero strategy outlines a range of measures to support the ongoing development of more efficient aircraft, which is a key tool in our toolkit, along with modernising airspace with the new UK airspace design service, which is vital for more efficient airspace, and support for new hydrogen technology and greenhouse gas removal. This is a vital part of that package.

  [Source]

  To answer your question, Heathrow has been invited by the Government to submit updated proposals for our expansion plans by the end of this month. Within them, we will be setting out our views on our future trajectory to net zero. We think that the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism are vital. The Government have already said that they want to keep the mandate levels under review; you are right that although we are more ambitious to begin with and the EU is less ambitious, the EU takes over. Our view is that heading more in the direction of the EU’s ambition over time will be important for Heathrow and for aviation generally, but we will keep that under review.

  [Source]

  15:10

  Q I want to be very careful with this question. We have had questions about investors and appetites to put money into these technologies—into refineries, production and particular projects. There was previously a fairly strong consensus on the need to address climate change, and this is one of the projects that we are doing to mitigate those impacts. There is a fair amount of rhetoric at the moment about stopping investment in net zero projects in particular regions, some of which have a heavy dependency on or a high frequency of these sorts of projects—north Lincolnshire, Humberside and such areas. Is there a risk that that sort of rhetoric damages investor confidence and that, with that sort of language and those sorts of pronouncements being made, we see challenges in delivering the jobs and the plants and seeing the capacity that we need come online?

  [Source]

• 2 Jul 2025: Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review

  13:25

  This report is an utterly damning assessment of our national resilience, this time through decay but also through a lack of readiness as the climate crisis changes the dynamics, with old equipment operating at higher temperatures just as the loads for climate control and air conditioning are at their peak. The British people will rightly be alarmed that the problem that caused this substation failure was known as long ago as 2018, but there is a much wider point here. Beyond the technicalities of this failure, the resilience of critical national infrastructure has been neglected for far too long.

  [Source]

• 17 Jun 2025: Hydrogen-powered Aviation

  10:06

  Nothing is inevitable about the pollution in our skies. Aviation does not have to be the easy poster child for conspicuous consumption of resources and casual carbon emissions. It does not have to be part of the problems we face with a warming planet, melting ice caps and increasingly extreme weather. With the right choices, it can be part of the solution. Britain is already feeling the mounting toll of climate change: flash floods, record heatwaves and freak storms. That is not abstract; it is already costing lives and livelihoods across the country. Aviation contributes to that problem and we cannot pretend that it does not.

  In 2022 alone, UK domestic and international flights produced nearly 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 7% of the nation’s entire greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing changes, the Climate Change Committee projects that aviation will account for 16% of UK emissions by 2035. We cannot meet our net zero goals without tackling this issue. This debate is particularly well timed following the introduction of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week, which addresses the climate emissions of existing technology fuels.

  There is good news beyond that, however, and aviation can be part of the solution to our fight against climate change. Thanks to scientific progress and industry innovation, we now have the technology to fly without fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is a clean fuel that emits no carbon when used. It is one of the most promising solutions for decarbonising aviation, whether by powering aircraft directly or by creating sustainable aviation fuels. That is not a pipe dream; it is already happening.

  Hydrogen aircraft are being trialled, green fuel production is scaling up and aircraft around the world are beginning to prepare for a hydrogen-powered future. However, the UK risks being left behind unless we match ambition with investment. The ATI estimates that aerospace’s economic contribution to the UK economy could increase from £8.4 billion today to over £37 billion by 2050, driven by new low and zero emission technologies such as hydrogen-powered aircraft.

  The ATI strategic programme has supported several key projects in the shift to develop hydrogen-electric propulsion systems, including ZeroAvia’s HyFlyer and advanced fuel cells for aviation decarbonisation projects, GKN’s H2GEAR and H2FlyGHT—lots of confusing acronyms and project names—and Project Fresson, led by Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. Some of those projects, including those by ZeroAvia, have resulted in or will soon result in certification applications with the Civil Aviation Authority that will complete in the coming years—the earliest of them by 2026.

  ZeroAvia, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), is backed by many huge investors, including Airbus, British Airways, and the Amazon Climate Pledge Fund. It is already attracting orders from airlines such as Alaska Airlines and United Airlines. Critically, it has also had investment from the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank, which shows the immediate viability and attractiveness of investing in this technology.

  The next stage of that work is to modify a Pearl 15 business jet engine, which is a twin shaft turbofan that currently powers the Bombardier Global Express, showing that this approach is potentially applicable to turbofans as well as turboprops. The direct combustion of hydrogen in a modified existing-technology engine shows an alternative route to harnessing hydrogen to decarbonise the aviation industry. These projects show the huge potential of this fuel to take aviation into the modern era of low and zero-emission operations.

  Of all transport sectors, on a first-principle basis, aviation is the one to which hydrogen is most applicable. In fact hydrogen will be essential if aviation is to make its net zero targets. Aviation is the most energy-intensive mode of transport and the most sensitive to mass, as the Breguet range equations that I explained to all hon. Members last week show. That is why aviation will be the most suitable use of hydrogen fuel in the future. Aviation has the least competition from other zero-emission pathways, due to their various shortcomings. The sector’s energy demand is plannable and high, creating significant offtake that can bring H 2 down the cost curve. Additionally, the professionalised and regulated environment of aviation is very well suited to handling the new fuel, and establishing standards and safety. Hydrogen’s success in aviation will be a major proof point against many existing investor concerns for other sectors.

  I urge the Minister first to provide longer-term clarity to industry on the availability of hydrogen. The Government must signal their intentions on renewable energy and hydrogen production targets beyond 2040, and, to bring forward the business models for hydrogen transport, storage and power, they should also extend Aerospace Technology Institute funding to a 10-year horizon.

  [Source]

• 11 Jun 2025: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

  16:33

  Over the past few months, the APPG has been hearing about the technologies that we have today. Of particular interest is ZeroAvia, which is already flying a hydrogen-electric, zero-emission aircraft in the UK—it has a hydrogen fuel cell with electrical propulsion, which offers completely zero-emission flight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned, this is only a stepping stone to the truly zero-emission flight that we really need to capture.

  [Source]

• 3 Apr 2025: Thames Water: Government Support

  15:00

  Thames Water’s sewage problems stem from a systemic failure to update its outdated, mostly Victorian infrastructure. High-risk infrastructure is given ad hoc fixes, with zero communication to customers. The company’s approach to fixing water facilities in Southwark, in London, is a prime example of this reckless approach. Last year, the chief executive had the audacity to blame excess storm overflows on climate change. Yes, climate change is real, and it is causing more intense rainfall and more regular storms, but let me ask Thames Water this question: how long have we known about this, and why did Thames Water not invest annually in its crumbling infrastructure to handle this well-known challenge?

  [Source]

• 3 Apr 2025: Waste Incinerators

  14:26

  The Liberal Democrats want the UK to be world-leading in its efforts to improve air quality. We have called for a £20 billion emergency fund for local authorities to tackle the clean air crisis, and a £150 billion green recovery plan. We need to pass a new Clean Air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, to codify in law that nobody should be subject to consistently awful levels of air pollution. Not passing those measures makes a mockery of the Government’s already opaque plans for meaningful climate action. We were deeply concerned by the finding of the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget that the UK has deliverable plans for only a third of the emissions reductions needed to meet climate goals. If the Government want to rectify that then they should get a grip, with a beefed-up approach to managing waste and dealing with air pollution. We can do a lot more to prevent waste going to incineration in the first place, and better regulate the existing stock of incinerators.

  [Source]

• 25 Mar 2025: Great British Energy Bill

  This is not just about the practicalities of the need to include these measures. Is it not essential that we show the public that the measures we are promoting to achieve net zero—a cause for which there is overwhelming public support, notwithstanding some parties’ attitudes to our need to get there and when—are not tainted by human rights abuses?

  [Source]

• 10 Oct 2024: Cost of Rail Fares

  I want to broaden the discussion to investment in our rail infrastructure. In early 2023, the previous Government announced much-vaunted funding for upgrades to the Belmont rail line. Some £14.1 million was awarded from the levelling-up fund to dual-track part of the line to allow train frequency to be increased to four an hour in each direction by the addition of a passing loop at Belmont station. Such an increase in accessibility would massively benefit my constituents, but it is also key to getting the best out of the cancer hub site that Sutton council has been so ambitious in investing in. That incredibly advanced, world-leading cancer research centre in south-west London will benefit not just Sutton and Cheam but the whole of London. Does the Minister agree that investing in these infrastructure upgrades, as well as concentrating on getting value for money from existing services, is critical to allowing residents to make sustainable transport choices? Does he also agree that it is critical to unleashing the economic benefits of investment, such as in the Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton and Cheam, to allowing us to achieve our net zero climate goals and to boosting the economy, which the Government seem keen to support?

  [Source]

See all Parliamentary Speeches Mentioning Climate