• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Matthew Pennycook's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Matthew Pennycook

• 16 Jul 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  As part of that overall change to the framework, we also proposed new polices to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. They include, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development; the establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around well-connected train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land; and policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. Our proposals also include policies that embed a vision-led approach to transport, further embedding the changes that we made in December 2024; policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation; and policies designed to ensure that we are better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks, and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.

  Full debate: National Planning Policy Framework

• 28 Jan 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  Registered providers of social housing facing mounting pressures from severely constrained financial capacity, higher costs of finance, rising building costs and commitments to remediate existing stock to meet building safety and decarbonisation requirements, all of which have led to a scaling back of section 106 acquisitions.

  Full debate: Planning: Section 106 System

• 28 Jan 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  Following consultation, we have decided that all new and existing social rented properties must have an energy performance certificate C, using reformed EPCs, in a choice of fabric performance, smart readiness or heating system metric, by 1 April 2030. The compliance date to meet a second metric has been extended, so that all new and existing social rented properties must meet the equivalent of EPC C in a second metric by 1 April 2039. This recognises the unique role that social landlords play in both improving the energy efficiency and decency of homes and in increasing the supply of social and affordable housing, ensuring that social landlords have the confidence to invest now towards meeting our shared objectives to reduce fuel poverty, decarbonise the sector and increase supply.

  Full debate: Social and Affordable Housing Renewal

• 16 Dec 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  10. Better addressing climate change

  We want to set out how decisions can take a proactive approach to both mitigation and adaptation in relation to climate change, in a way that links to other relevant policies in the draft framework.

  Full debate: Planning Reform: Next Phase

• 16 Dec 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  In addition to these and other important policy changes on matters such as design, vision-led transport and climate change mitigation and adaptation, the revised framework delivers on various commitments made either at this Dispatch Box or in the other place. As a result, it now includes a clear requirement to incorporate swift bricks into new developments; the application of new national standards for sustainable drainage systems; explicit protection for our precious chalk streams; and, as a result of sustained advocacy by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), recognition of the importance of providing new, improved, accessible and inclusive facilities for children’s play.

  Full debate: Planning Reform

• 12 Nov 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for that series of points and questions, to which I will do my best to respond—I note that some of them stray outside of my departmental responsibilities. We are talking specifically about putting in place necessary changes to the planning regime to allow formal requests to be made for data centres to be considered under section 35. Other things, such as the spatial plans that the Liberal Democrat spokesman just mentioned, are matters for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the NPS is obviously a matter for Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. However, I will make sure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of the comments of the hon. Members.

  Full debate: Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

  In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.

  Full debate: Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

• 06 Nov 2025: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: I’m championing the interests of British people at COP30. Here, I’ll set out the economic opportunities of net zero: del… [Source]

• 13 Oct 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I will refer the hon. Lady’s comments about the warm homes plan to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. If she wishes to write to me with details of any particular cowboy builders, I would be more than happy to read what she has to say.

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 17 Sep 2025: Tweet

  To deliver homes at the scale, pace and quality England needs, we need to embrace Modern Methods of Construction. Good to visit @EdarothUK in Bradford this afternoon to see the high-quality, net zero MMC homes they’re delivering with social and affordable housing providers. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1968367918129017094/photo/1 [Source]

• 18 Jul 2025: Tweet

  RT @UKLabour: Our plan to become a green energy superpower is cutting bills and creating jobs right across the country. Reform UK would des… [Source]

• 10 Jun 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill

• 9 Jun 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The December 2021 uplift to energy-efficiency standards means that most new build homes already achieve EPC ratings of A or B. As recently announced, the Government intend to introduce future standards in the autumn that will set more ambitious energy-efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes to ensure that they are net zero-ready.

  Full debate: New Homes: Minimum EPC Rating

  My hon. Friend tempts me into the responsibilities of another Department, but I will get the relevant Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to write to him to set out what measures are being put in place as part of the warm homes plan.

  Full debate: New Homes: Minimum EPC Rating

• 22 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, new clause 58 would place a statutory duty on local planning authorities to contribute to targets set under the Environment Act, the Climate Change Act and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act.

  Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. In our view, it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central Government, air quality in the UK is improving, although we accept that there is more to do. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects.

  On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, a number of which are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched the local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.

  The Government also provide a range of net zero support to local authorities. This includes funding five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net zero projects and attract commercial investment, and funding the local net zero accelerator pilot programme to test how to support local places to leverage commercial investment at scale to accelerate the move to net zero.

  Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline and climate change impacts, we do not think a statutory duty for local authorities to contribute to environmental, net zero or air quality targets, or towards the Climate Change Act’s programme for climate adaptation, is necessary. For that reason, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

• 22 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I reassure the hon. Lady that there is specific reference to overheating in the NPPF as it stands. As we have discussed several times, the framework was partially revised in December last year, but we have again committed to consult on clearer policies for development purposes, which is how decisions on applications are made. These will cover the full range of planning considerations, including how the planning system can address the risks posed by climate change. This is a really important topic, but we think that we are addressing it through our work to strengthen building regulations and planning policy in the future. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is somewhat reassured and will withdraw the motion.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

  I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and I very much recognise the challenge that she has outlined. The Government are committed to the 2050 net zero carbon emissions target, and we recognise that embodied carbon can account for a significant proportion of a building’s whole life carbon emissions. Climate change is obviously one of the greatest challenges facing the world today, and managing carbon emissions and carbon storage is vital to mitigating the speed and impact of climate change. The national planning policy framework is clear that the planning system should contribute to and support the transition to a low-carbon future. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.

  Addressing embodied carbon is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, not just in buildings. As other policies take effect, and industries that supply construction decarbonise, the embodied carbon emissions of buildings will fall in turn. I am happy to give the matter further thought, and I am more than happy to have the hon. Member for North Herefordshire take one of my Tea Room surgery appointment slots.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

  Finally, I thank my fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, for his support on the relevant parts of the Bill that pertained to his Department; my other hon. Friends, whose valuable insights have benefited our deliberations; and the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington, for Didcot and Wantage, and for North Herefordshire for the spirited and constructive dialogue that we have had. I value all the contributions and challenges that have been made.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

• 20 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and other hon. Members for speaking to it. They are all right to highlight the damage caused by the scrapping of the zero carbon homes standard back in 2015. It is worth recalling that that was widely criticised at the time, not only by environmentalists, but by house builders that had geared up to be ready to make the change. It is particularly regrettable, not least to me—I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, will feel the same—to confront the collective costs of the retrofit that is now required because those standards were not in place.

  The Government agree that reducing carbon emissions from new homes is a vital part of our ambition to reach net zero by 2050, and increasing solar power in the country must play an important role in that transition. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said when he referenced the debate on the private Member’s Bill that we had a few months back, it is already the Government’s intention to amend building regulations later this year and set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes. The future homes and building standards will set our homes on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

• 20 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Duties to have regard to sustainable development and climate change

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

  Clause 80 seeks to ensure that all types of development corporation must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaption, and good design. The delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects is vital to boost the housing supply, as I just mentioned. We must ensure, however, that large-scale new communities are delivered sustainably, with care for our climate, and that they have good design and quality at their heart.

  Currently, only new town development corporations are required to aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The current legislative framework does not require any development corporation model to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. Clause 80 will change that by amending current legislation to ensure that all development corporations must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and good design.

  Through the changes, we will create certainty for local communities that development corporations working in their areas will put sustainable development, climate change, and good design at the heart of delivery. I commend the simple, straightforward and, I hope, uncontroversial clause to the Committee.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

  In particular, the existing legislation sets out a long list of infrastructure that mayoral development corporations can provide, but the same list is not currently applied to new town and urban development corporations. Clause 81 addresses that by standardising the list of infrastructure that development corporations can provide. It also goes further in adding heat networks to the list. This recognises heat as a distinct utility, alongside others such as water, gas and electricity. The addition of heat networks will also empower development corporations in their aims with respect to sustainable development and climate change, a point that we have just debated.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

• 14 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  On amendment 89, although I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for clarity on the matter, I do not agree that any changes are needed to clarify the provision. Proposed new section 12D(4)(b) already enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. It does not need to be one or the other.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

  “must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

  Amendment 52 would introduce a requirement for Natural England to have regard to the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan and any reports or strategies produced under the Climate Change Act 2008 when preparing an environmental delivery plan. As I have set out, clause 53 is clear that Natural England must have regard to the environmental improvement plan when preparing an environmental delivery plan. As the environmental improvement plan covers net zero, that will ensure that Natural England adequately and appropriately considers those issues when preparing an environmental delivery plan.

  Additionally, the Bill gives Natural England the flexibility to have regard to any other strategies or plans it considers relevant. Again, we are trusting Natural England to make judgments that benefit nature; that is the intention of the fund. Furthermore, as environmental delivery plans discharge only environmental obligations relating to specific environmental features, climate change and carbon emissions will still need to be considered by developers at the planning permission stage.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

  Amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, echoes her previous amendment, as she rightly acknowledged. It would add the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection to the list of bodies that Natural England must consult when producing an environmental delivery plan. As set out previously, public consultation gives any organisation or individual an opportunity to provide views, without their being specifically listed in the legislation. The existing drafting would therefore allow the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee to provide comment through the consultation process where they think appropriate, rather than requiring Natural England to seek their views for every environmental delivery plan.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

• 8 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  We also recognise the contribution that more energy-efficient buildings will make to meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2050. Future standards, which will be introduced later this year, will set out how new homes and buildings can move away from reliance on volatile fossil fuels, and ensure they are fit for a net zero future. I look forward to updating the House on what those future standards entail in due course.

  Full debate: Cold and Damp Homes

  It has been acknowledged that I have some knowledge of housing, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me into an area about which I do not have particular knowledge, not least because the warm homes plan is the responsibility not of my Department but of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure that Department will have heard all the comments that have been made about the warm homes plan, and I will ensure that the relevant Ministers reflect on them.

  Full debate: Cold and Damp Homes

• 24 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Obviously, the new towns taskforce has to decide what it wants on policy. The challenge that we face with them is legitimacy, and there is still work to do in making sure that there is a Rolls-Royce process of getting public consent for this new generation of places. However, the outcome is such an opportunity to generate places that genuinely enhance people’s health, deal with the climate crisis and provide high levels of affordability. What a contrast that is with what we have delivered through town and country planning at local plan level, which is a lot of the bolt-on, car-dependent development. Frankly, as a planner, I find that shameful. The opportunity with development corporations is there and I hope that the Government seize it.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

• 12 Mar 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I want briefly to comment on water quality and pollution. Beyond the provision of water infrastructure, we are facing challenges in maintaining the quality of our water because of ever-increasing pressures from pollution, climate change and unsustainable practices. This Government are prioritising water quality as a key element of our environmental and public health agenda. Significant steps are being taken to address pollution, enhance infrastructure, and ensure clean and sustainable water sources for future generations. For example, as part of our efforts to create a plan-led system that is underpinned by a genuinely accessible and understandable policy framework, we intend to consult on and produce a set of national policies for decision making later this year. It will include policies on topics such as pollution, plan making, healthy and safe communities, and the delivery of homes, and how all of that interlinks. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Full debate: Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

• 27 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Planning is principally a local activity. It is local plans that set out a vision and a framework for the future development of any given area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and essential infrastructure—as well as a basis for conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and achieving well-designed places.

  Full debate: Local Plan Making and Guidance

• 27 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Building and upgrading the right economic infrastructure—whether that be electricity networks, public transport links, renewable energy projects, roads, or water supplies—is essential to achieving that growth and delivering the Government’s long-term missions. Yet when it comes to infrastructure delivery, Britain today performs poorly against comparator countries. That needs to change.

  Full debate: National Infrastructure Planning

• 17 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  However, we cannot support the Bill today. That is because the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes. The new standards will ensure that all new homes are future-proof, with low-carbon heating and very high-quality building fabric. Not only will they help us to deliver our commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, but they will reduce bills, tackle fuel poverty, grow skills, foster diverse job markets and make Britain energy secure.

  Full debate: New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

• 14 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I wonder whether I might provide some helpful clarification: this Bill has no provisions in it that deal with minimum energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will shortly go out to consultation on those MEE standards for the PRS, but it is not within the scope of this Bill.

  Full debate: Renters’ Rights Bill

• 31 Dec 2024: Tweet

  RT @antonioguterres: The top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years, including 2024. This is climate breakdown in r… [Source]

• 12 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Before I set out a number of important areas in which we have made changes, let me touch briefly on some of the proposals that we intend to implement unamended. First, we have reversed the anti-supply changes introduced by the last Government almost exactly a year ago. From the abandonment of mandatory housing targets to the softening of land supply and delivery test provisions, the policies that gave local authorities the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal targets implied are no more. Secondly, we have made explicit the importance of growth supporting development, from labs to data centres, to supply chains and logistics. In the same vein, we have made clear that the default position for renewable energy deployment should be yes. Thirdly, we strongly promoted mixed tenure development, reflecting robust evidence that attests to the fact that such developments build out faster and create diverse communities. Fourthly, we have made a series of changes to bolster affordable housing delivery and enable local authorities to determine the right mix of affordable housing for their communities. That will support our commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

  Full debate: Building Homes

  I am not sure I detected a question there, but there were several points. I will endeavour to respond to at least a few of them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s broad support for the framework and, in particular, for renewable energy deployment.

  Full debate: Building Homes

  I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right: we have made a number of changes to the framework to further strengthen references to climate mitigation and adaptation. We have made a number of other changes relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and how we can support those through the planning system. On BNG specifically, I am more than happy to have a detailed conversation about our thinking on how to successfully roll out BNG across the country and ensure that it works not just on large sites, but on small sites in particular.

  Full debate: Building Homes

• 24 Nov 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: My statement on the #COP29 outcomes: ???? This is a critical eleventh hour deal at the eleventh hour for the climate. It is… [Source]

• 15 Nov 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: COP29 is a chance for Britain to show climate leadership on the global stage. This government believes that climate secur… [Source]

• 12 Nov 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ben_Spencer: Starmer at #cop29: “There is no national security, there is no economic security, there is no global security, without cli… [Source]

• 25 Sep 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Rachel’s expertise will be invaluable in supporting countries on the front line of the climate crisis. We are backing up… [Source]

• 27 Jul 2024: Tweet

  RT @energygovuk: We can tackle the climate crisis and achieve energy security by working with our global partners. That’s why Energy Sec… [Source]

• 06 Jul 2024: Tweet

  RT @10DowningStreet: Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP @Ed_Miliband as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero @energygovuk. https://t.co/b… [Source]

• 26 Jun 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Young people have a right to feel angry about the climate crisis. See my message on London Climate Action Week???? https://… [Source]

• 19 Mar 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Tackling the climate crisis will cut bills, create jobs, and boost energy security. But Rishi Sunak has never cared abou… [Source]

• 02 Feb 2024: Tweet

  RT @MrOkereke: We're investing £21 million to decarbonise 665 council homes in @Royal_Greenwich. That's roughly £31,500 per property. Ou… [Source]

• 20 Jan 2024: Tweet

  A Tory government with no industrial strategy determined to undermine progress toward net zero and UK climate leadership. https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1748797500448800897 [Source]

• 16 Jan 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: So far this government has united: ❌The former Prime Minister ❌The Net Zero Tsar ❌and the COP26 President in opposit… [Source]

• 08 Jan 2024: Tweet

  The Tory Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill is a damaging political gimmick. It will not bring down people’s energy bills. It will do nothing for energy security. But it will undermine our climate commitments and erode UK climate leadership. I will vote against it tonight. [Source]

• 07 Jan 2024: Tweet

  RT @horton_official: Interim head of climate change committee has responded to @jeremy_hunt claims on @bbcr4today @bbcnickrobinson that the… [Source]

• 15 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @LeoHickman: Less than 48hrs later, COP28 president's mask slips: "The world continues to need low-carbon oil and gas and low-cost oil… [Source]

• 14 Dec 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  As we have heard, the global stocktake decision text that was agreed in Dubai commits the parties to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Can I press the Minister to clarify what the Government believe the implications of that aspect of the agreement are for the UK? Will it mean that the UK Government now have to accelerate action to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in what remains of this decade? If so, what new measures will be needed? If not, are the Government really saying that the COP28 agreement changes nothing for the UK when it comes to fossil fuel usage?

  Full debate: COP28

• 14 Dec 2023: Tweet

  If we are to keep the hope of 1.5 degrees alive it cannot simply be business as usual for the UK on fossil fuels in the aftermath of COP28. https://twitter.com/mtpennycook/status/1735302645454094722/video/1 [Source]

• 14 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @CarbonBrief: NEW – COP28: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Dubai ✍️ @aruna_sekhar @daisydunnesci @orladwyer_ @DrSimEvans… [Source]

• 13 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @catabreu_: The world has declared the end of the fossil fuel era at #COP28 . This is an extraordinary turning point for these negotia… [Source]

• 12 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @fionaharvey: It’s great that UK now working for ambitious outcome at #Cop28 but hard not to think that UK maxing out the North Sea, and… [Source]

• 10 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @antonioguterres: I have come back to #COP28, because we are on the brink of climate disaster & this conference must mark a turning poin… [Source]

• 05 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @LouHaigh: The other Tory rebellion last night was on the Zero Emissions Mandate, which will require 22% of new vehicles next year to be… [Source]

• 05 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @adamvaughan_uk: NEW Global fossil fuel carbon emissions have hit a record high Up 1.1% this year, to 37.5bn tonnes of CO2 They need… [Source]

• 02 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Speaking to global leaders at COP28, there is a desire for Britain to return to the world stage of climate leadership. T… [Source]

• 29 Nov 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Climate delay is not just damaging for our net zero goals at home but abroad too. The Tories are telling other countries… [Source]

• 29 Nov 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Success at COP28 depends on global leadership. But the UK’s leading climate expert has described the Tories’ climate del… [Source]

• 27 Nov 2023: Tweet

  Happy fifteenth birthday @theCCCuk and thanks @ChiefExecCCC to you and your team for the invaluable analysis and advice you continue to provide. Here’s to the next 15 crucial years. https://twitter.com/ChiefExecCCC/status/1728708598430044648 [Source]

• 27 Nov 2023: Tweet

  RT @ClimateReport_: ???? BREAKING ???? COP28 president secretly used climate summit role to push oil trade with foreign government officials. A… [Source]

• 24 Oct 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  However, while we welcome the fact that the Government’s amendment in lieu would ensure consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation in the preparation or modification of NDMPs, it would not achieve what Lords amendment 45 would: namely, to establish genuine coherence between the planning system and our country’s climate commitments, not least by requiring local planning authorities to have regard to climate when making decisions on individual planning applications. The planning system in its current form is manifestly failing to play its full part in addressing the climate emergency. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad different ways.

  The Bill is a missed opportunity to fully align the planning system with our climate mitigation and adaptation goals and ensure that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. The provisions in the Bill that require local plans to be designed in such a way as to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change are welcome, but they are transposed from existing legislation introduced 15 years ago, and, alone, they are not sufficient. The promised related update to the national planning policy framework to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible is vital, but it will not take place until well after the Bill has received Royal Assent if it materialises at all during what remains of this Parliament.

  As we have argued consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, there is a pressing need for clear and unambiguous national policy guidance on climate change, a purposeful statutory framework to align every aspect of the planning system with net zero, and an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan making to achieve climate change mitigation and adaptation when preparing plans and policies or exercising their planning decision-making functions.

  The Climate Change Committee recommended in its 2022 progress report that

  “Net zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms”

  As things stand, they have not been. In this week—of all weeks—when we have seen once again the impact on communities across the country of the more frequent extreme weather events that climate change is driving, we should look to improve how the planning system responds to the climate emergency. The Government amendment in lieu is welcome, but it does not go far enough. For that reason, we will support Lords amendment 45.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @JoshuaNevett: As Rishi Sunak scales down the ambition of the UK's net zero policies, leaders from other countries are scaling up theirs… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @LeoHickman: All-important response from UK govt's official climate advisors @theCCCuk Chair @piersforster: "Today’s announcement lik… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @realBenBloch: ???? BREAKING: Speaker Lindsay Hoyle blasts Sunak for failing to make his statement on net zero policies in Parliament. Spo… [Source]

• 19 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @SamCoatesSky: Lots of Whitehall blindsided tonight on the car element of the net zero package, and the timing. Not least the UK deleg… [Source]

• 05 Aug 2023: Tweet

  RT @MayorofLondon: London has the largest zero emission bus fleet of any European city ???? I was delighted to visit Edgware bus garage to ce… [Source]

• 29 Jul 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: The cost of living crisis can only be beaten by tackling the climate crisis. That’s what Labour’s Green Prosperity Plan w… [Source]

• 25 Jul 2023: Tweet

  RT @ZiaWeise: This summer is what climate change looks like. The July heat scorching the Northern Hemisphere is no longer a rare event.… [Source]

• 19 Jul 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  The science, as we all know, is unequivocal. Bold action is required and it is required now. However, when it comes to the UK’s net zero emissions target, the Government have consistently been long on aspiration but short on tangible progress. The UK’s nationally determined contribution requires emissions reductions of 68% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels and the Government’s sixth carbon budget requires them to be slashed by 78% by 2035. Yet in their June 2023 progress report, the Climate Change Committee states plainly that its confidence in the achievement of both targets

  The Government have also been clear as to the scale of solar deployment likely to be necessary to meet the UK’s wider net zero targets, with a technical annex to the “Power Up Britain” policy paper published in March suggesting that approximately 90 GW of solar will ultimately be necessary. Yet last year saw just 0.7 GW of new solar deployed, in a rate of installation that falls well short of what is required to meet the Government’s target. As the Climate Change Committee has stated in its 2023 progress report,

  Full debate: Planning and Solar Farms

  As the House is aware, the Labour party has committed to delivering a zero emission power system by 2030—five years ahead of the Government’s target date—and we assess that honouring that commitment will require us to triple the deployment of solar by the end of this decade to up to 50 GW of capacity. We are under no illusions: we know that is a stretching target, but it is essential to achieving zero carbon power by the end of the decade, and a Labour Government will do what is necessary to meet it.

  Full debate: Planning and Solar Farms

  Although we want the majority of solar to be deployed on rooftops, there is no question but that we will need to take steps to enable the deployment of far more ground-mounted solar than is presently being installed, and that will include a number of large sites. That will require reform of our planning system. We believe that the planning system as a whole needs to be overhauled and aligned fully with our net zero emissions target.

  Full debate: Planning and Solar Farms

• 28 Jun 2023: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: NEW Brutal @theCCCuk report says chance of UK meeting climate pledges has "worsened" since 2022 ????Govt has no "credible" p… [Source]

• 5 Jun 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Similarly, we reject the notion that building more homes must come at the expense of wider national policy objectives. In addition to increasing housing supply in a way that prioritises quality of build and quality of place, we will act to ensure that the housing and planning systems play their full part in addressing other pressing national challenges such as the drive towards net zero, the need for urgent nature restoration and the need to improve public health.

  Full debate: New Housing Supply

• 17 May 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: We are all becoming used to reports about the failure to tackle the climate crisis as if it is normal. But it must not be.… [Source]

• 25 Apr 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  The Government have committed to exploring the cost and deliverability of additional net zero requirements, but only in a successor to the 2021 programme.

  Full debate: Affordable Homes Programme

  There is a strong case for that. It is an issue—one of many—that we are exploring in detail. The situation speaks to a wider failure, which is the abolition of the zero homes standard by, I think, the coalition Government. We built tens if not hundreds of thousands of homes over recent years that we will have to retrofit at great cost. The least we can do is change the criteria the programme operates on, so that at least we build net zero-ready homes for which we will not have to do that in years to come. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what precisely is stopping changes being made to the programme to ensure, as the Greater London Authority has done, that all new grant-funded homes are net zero carbon and air quality neutral.

  We want the performance of the affordable homes programme to improve between now and the general election, and I look forward to the Minister detailing the various ways in which the Government are attempting to achieve that. But as laudable an aim as fine-tuning the existing programme is, Labour is clear that a very different programme will be required in the future to markedly increase the supply of new net zero-ready, genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy, as is our aim. It is an aim based on a reassessment of the amount of grant funding directed toward sub-market rent and the building of social rented homes in particular; on a review of the scope of eligible sub-market products, not least the so-called affordable rent tenure; and on a reappraisal of whether there are better low-cost home ownership products than shared ownership.

  Full debate: Affordable Homes Programme

• 19 Apr 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  The problem is that political choices made by successive Conservative-led Governments have piled significant financial pressure on to social landlords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) argued earlier, the cumulative impact of having to build new, affordable homes despite swingeing grant funding reductions; the four-year 1% rent cut imposed between 2016 and 2020; the fact that the shortfall arising from this year’s 7% rent cut is unfunded; and the long-term challenges posed by decarbonisation and building safety in the absence of adequate Government support cannot be overstated.

  Full debate: Future of Social Housing

• 30 Mar 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: ‘Green Day’ summarised: ❌ No removal of the onshore wind ban ❌ No new money for energy efficiency ❌ No net zero mandate… [Source]

• 28 Mar 2023: Tweet

  RT @adamvaughan_uk: .@Ed_Miliband says now is a decisive moment in race for green jobs of the future Net zero is a massive economic opport… [Source]

• 14 Mar 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: A British Inflation Reduction Act would cut bills, deliver energy security, create good jobs, and provide climate leadersh… [Source]

• 10 Mar 2023: Tweet

  RT @adamvaughan_uk: NEW UK’s first new coalmine in decades will endanger methane emissions pledge, say experts at ⁦@EmberClimate⁩ Think t… [Source]

• 09 Feb 2023: Tweet

  RT @KerryMP: Today I responded to the debate on @CSkidmoreUK's Net Zero Review, which makes clear the Govt is not seizing the benefits of N… [Source]

• 13 Dec 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  Of particular importance to us is the need to ensure that the Bill fully aligns the planning system with the UK’s climate mitigation and adaptation goals. In Committee, Ministers argued repeatedly that existing local and national duties, requirements and powers are sufficient to ensure that the planning system responds as required to the climate emergency, yet that is demonstrably not the case, given that the system regularly throws up decisions that are seemingly incompatible with the need to make rapid progress towards net zero emissions by mid-century and to prepare the country for the changes that are already under way. That is likely to remain the case until the Government produce clear and unambiguous national policy guidance, in the form of a revised NPPF, and legislate for a purposeful statutory framework to ensure genuine coherence between our country’s planning system and its climate commitments. New clause 98 would deliver the latter, and I urge Members to support it.

  What is meant by that? The Minister will know that sites do not have to be identified in local plans to receive consent for onshore wind deployment, but there is a strong presumption that they should be, and rightly so. If we are to strengthen our energy security, cut bills and reduce emissions, we need local authorities to proactively consider the opportunities within their boundaries for the deployment of all forms of renewable energy, including onshore wind generation.

  New clause 114, in contrast, is clear and unambiguous. It would require the Government to remove the onerous restrictions that the NPPF places on the development of onshore wind projects, and it would ensure that local communities have their say via the planning process, without imposing a uniquely restrictive consenting regime upon only this form of renewable energy generation. It would ensure that local authorities must at least explore the desirability of renewable energy deployment, including onshore wind, as part of the local plan preparation process, and I commend the new clause to the House.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

  There are a number of useful provisions in the Bill that we support, but we fear that any benefits that might flow from them will ultimately be undermined by others that risk causing serious harm, whether it be to already low levels of affordable housing supply, the status and remit of local planning or important environmental protections. If the legislation before us were only an idiosyncratic mix of the good, the half-baked and the bad—a typically Govian curate’s egg, one might say—that would be disappointing enough. What adds to the frustration we feel is the fact that, in a larger sense, it represents a real missed opportunity to enact the kind of planning reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges that we face as a country: to tackle the housing crisis, to respond to the climate emergency, to address our rapidly degrading natural environment, and to better promote health and wellbeing.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

• 07 Dec 2022: Tweet

  RT @PippaCrerar: Incredible statistic: the mine will produce an estimated 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the equivalent… [Source]

• 07 Dec 2022: Tweet

  A foolish decision which is incompatible with our net zero target and that will do nothing to lower energy bills, strengthen energy security or provide Cumbrians with the secure jobs they deserve. https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1600554610317438979 [Source]

• 05 Dec 2022: Tweet

  Alok Sharma is right. This coal mine is not only incompatible with net zero, but it will do nothing to lower energy bills, strengthen energy security or provide Cumbrians with the secure jobs they deserve. Sunak needs to face down his backbenchers and ditch it once and for all. https://twitter.com/AlokSharma_RDG/status/1598985110879055873 [Source]

• 20 Nov 2022: Tweet

  While #COP27 was disappointing in numerous respects, the fact that a dedicated loss and damage fund was officially established is significant; notwithstanding the huge amount of work still to do when it comes to supporting vulnerable states on the frontline of the climate crisis. [Source]

• 06 Nov 2022: Tweet

  Sunak may have reluctantly agreed to attend the COP27 climate summit in Egypt, but his climate record is decidedly mixed. Only Labour recognises the need to turn the UK into a green growth superpower and the opportunities presented by bold climate action. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/05/rishi-sunak-fossil-fuel-prime-minister-in-renewable-age [Source]

• 2 Nov 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The global methane pledge that emerged from COP26 committed its signatories, including the UK, to collectively reduce methane emissions by at least 30% below 2020 levels by the end of this decade. By how much have the Government reduced UK methane emissions in the year since the COP26 summit, and when will they outline a strategy to meet their 2030 commitment in full?

  Full debate: Global Temperature Rises

• 02 Nov 2022: Tweet

  Avoiding the stark consequences of runaway global heating requires a rapid reduction in methane emissions but it's not clear the government has made any progress toward the Global Methane Pledge commitments it signed up to at COP26. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1587793518369579019/video/1 [Source]

• 02 Nov 2022: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: The Prime Minister has been shamed into going to COP27 by the torrent of disbelief that he would fail to turn up. He is g… [Source]

• 31 Oct 2022: Tweet

  “Brazil is ready to resume its leading role in the fight against the climate crisis, protecting all our biomes, especially the Amazon Forest”. - President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ???????? A victory not only for the Brazilian people but for all our futures. [Source]

• 27 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: My Labour government will show climate leadership. Britain showing up to work with world leaders is an opportunity to gr… [Source]

• 27 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: This is a massive failure of leadership We were the COP26 hosts and now the UK PM will be missing in action What Rishi S… [Source]

• 20 Oct 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I tabled new clause 72 some time ago, with a view to pressing the Government to remove the de facto moratorium imposed for many years on the development of onshore wind. The growth plan, published late last month, committed the Government to doing just that, by bringing onshore wind planning policy into line with planning for other forms of infrastructure. As hon. Members know, most of the measures set out in that growth plan have been junked as part of the humiliating mini-Budget U-turn, but having seen no evidence to the contrary—the Minister might disappoint me again in this regard—we assume that the decision to remove onshore wind planning restrictions is one of the few to have survived the cull. Even if that is the case, it remains unclear how the Government intend to deliver on that commitment, so that this cheap form of renewable energy generation can be deployed more easily across England. New clause 82 probes the Government on that point.

  To meet our emissions reduction targets and the predicted increase in demand for electricity in coming decades, as the decarbonisation of our economy advances, there is a pressing need to increase our onshore wind capacity rapidly. The Climate Change Committee recommended the installation of between 22 GW and 29 GW by the end of this decade. As Labour Members will continue to argue, doing that at pace would have the added benefit of reducing bills, creating good jobs and bolstering our energy security.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

  Duty with regard to climate change

  “(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when preparing—

  (2) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure consistency with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when exercising a relevant function under a planning enactment.

  (a) exercising a planning function must have special regard to, and aim to ensure consistency with, achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and

  (b) making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

  (8) In relation to neighbourhood planning, a qualifying body preparing a draft neighbourhood plan or development order must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

  (9) For the purposes of this section, achieving the mitigation of climate change shall include the achievement of—

  (a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

  (b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

  (10) For the purposes of this section, achieving adaptation to climate change shall include the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including—

  (a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

  This new clause would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan-making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies or exercising their functions in planning decision-making.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

  It is fitting that new clause 73 is the last that I will move, because it deals with an issue that I care deeply about. I have been at pains, throughout our more than 20 sittings, to highlight that from our point of view, the Bill is a missed opportunity to fully align the planning system with our climate mitigation and adaptation goals.

  The Committee has discussed climate change in debates on several amendments, but not in any great detail. Runaway global heating is by far the most significant challenge faced by the country and the world, so I return to the subject to try once again to convince Ministers to amend the Bill to improve how the planning system responds to the climate emergency.

  As I have argued, although there are exemplary English development schemes, they are notable exceptions, and it is patently obvious that the planning system in general is not playing its full part in responding to climate change. Indeed, in numerous important respects, it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to global heating. The Labour party’s strong view is that more must be done to ensure that the planning system contributes effectively to the delivery of our emissions reduction targets, and that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. That view is shared by the Climate Change Committee; its 2022 progress report recommends that

  “Net Zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms that are expected as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.”

  We take that view because it is clear that existing duties and requirements, which set out how the planning system should help to achieve net zero, are not producing the required results.

  “shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.

  In addition, local planning authorities have a statutory duty under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to include in local plans policies to ensure that development and use of land mitigates and adapts to climate change. They also have powers, under the Planning and Energy Act 2008, to require new developments to source a proportion of their energy requirements from renewable and/or low-carbon and local sources, and, under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, to prioritise measures to tackle climate change at a plan-led level as a strategic priority.

  Despite that plethora of duties, requirements and powers, the planning system regularly throws up decisions that are seemingly incompatible with the need to make rapid progress toward net zero emissions by mid-century. To give the Committee a topical example, the Planning Inspectorate recently told West Oxfordshire District Council to remove from the area action plan for a new garden village at Salt Cross requirements to demonstrate net zero operational carbon on site through ultra-low energy fabric specification, low-carbon technologies and on-site renewable energy generation, on the basis that they were not justified or consistent with national policy.

  It is clear not only that Ministers have never prioritised the issue of how the planning system can drive climate action, but that the duties and requirements in legislation are insufficiently robust and fail to consistently shape the decisions of local planning authorities, or of the planning inspectors examining plans or appeals. Similarly, the national planning policy framework does not ensure that national policy contributes fully to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Although the Government promised to review it with a view to strengthening guidance on net zero, there is still no sign of the NPPF prospectus that one of the previous Housing Ministers who served on the Committee—forgive me; I forget which one—promised us would materialise this summer. As we argued many sitting ago during the debate on amendment 101 on plan making, the Government should overhaul the Bill to ensure that both national policy and local planning align fully with the commitments in the Climate Change Act 2008, and with statutory frameworks that provide for resilience to climate impacts, such as flooding and heatwaves.

  Although there are commendable examples of local authorities seeking to bring forward local plans that include quantified, strategic-level carbon reduction targets, they are few and far between. That is likely to remain the case until the Government produce clear and unambiguous national policy guidance and a purposeful statutory framework to align every aspect of the planning system with net zero. The former requires the production of a revised NPPF that fully supports the drive toward net zero, but the latter can be accomplished by the Government accepting new clause 73, which would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies, or exercising their functions in planning decision making.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

  The Minister will appreciate that I find that response disappointing; there is a clear difference of opinion. We think that the existing duties, requirements and guidance are not having the intended effect that he outlined, and we feel strongly that there is a case for amending primary legislation to ensure that the planning system aligns fully with the Climate Change Act and other statutory frameworks.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

• 19 Oct 2022: Vote

  Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 18 Oct 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  Given the serious nature of those concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. First, what evidence do the Government have that the examination phase of the DCO process is unduly holding up consent for offshore wind and other large-scale renewable energy projects? Secondly, given that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to set an unspecified date for a deadline below the current six-month timeframe for DCO examinations, can the Minister give us a sense of how much shorter the Government believe the examination stage should be under the proposed fast-tracked DCO application process? Thirdly, when will the Government tell us what the qualifying criteria will be for large-scale infrastructure projects subject to shorter examination stage timeframes via this route? Lastly, do the Government intend to designate schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production as “nationally significant” and bring them within the purview of this new fast-tracked DCO process—yes or no? I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to returning no doubt to this matter as we consider the Bill further.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting)

• 27 Sep 2022: Tweet

  RT @BBCPolitics: Labour would create a publicly owned green energy company, says Labour leader Keir Starmer "We won't make the mistake the… [Source]

• 8 Sep 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  This amendment would broaden the definition of environmental protection to allow the Secretary of State to specify outcomes relating to climate change obligations and public health objectives .

  It is essential that we have confidence that the new environmental outcomes report system will maintain the robustness and scope of the strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment frameworks, and will lead to tangible improvements in our natural environment, as well as helping to fight climate change. If we are to build that confidence and provide reassurance that the new system will deliver improved outcomes, the EOR framework provided for in clauses 116 to 130 needs strengthening in a number of important respects. Amendment 173, and others that will be debated later, are designed to achieve that aim.

  We take no issue whatsoever with any of the definitions in subsection (2). Indeed, the Government’s decision to explicitly include references to cultural heritage and the landscape in what is meant by “environmental protection” is welcome; but we still believe that the definition is too limited. Specifically, protection of the climate, and protection of people’s long-term health, safety and wellbeing from the effects of human activity, should be explicitly included in the Bill’s definition of environmental protection. Amendment 173 provides for that broader definition, and would enable the Secretary of State, when making regulations under part 5 of the Bill, to specify environmental outcomes relating to both climate change obligations and public health objectives.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting)

  (e) lowering the net UK carbon account as required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting)

  Amendment 174 seeks to replace subsection (5) of clause 116 with a subsection containing a more comprehensive list of requirements that the Secretary of State should have regard to—it is only “should have regard to”—before making any EOR regulations that make provision about specified environmental outcomes. In addition to the environmental improvement plan, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to: biodiversity targets, including those under sections 1 and 3 of the Environment Act 2021; the duty to conserve biodiversity, as is required under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; local nature recovery strategies, as is required under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021; and lowering the net UK carbon account, as is required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting)

• 31 Aug 2022: Tweet

  RT @timbolord: A job in which he would have personal responsibility for delivering a new Net Zero Strategy by March next year, the previous… [Source]

• 22 Jul 2022: Tweet

  Interesting visit to Tarmac Greenwich Wharf this morning to discuss industrial decarbonisation, the importance of safeguarded wharves as a low carbon route for materials into London and relations with the neighbouring GMV community. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1550458079799648256/photo/1 [Source]

• 20 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @Channel4News: “He was so appalled by his own leadership contest, he threatened to resign.” Shadow Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband… [Source]

• 19 Jul 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  How will a street votes system work in an area with a neighbourhood development order already in place, or a design code adopted as part of it? Again, will any proposals need to be found to be in accordance with an existing NDO or design code before it can go forward? Will the new provisions that the Bill puts in place for neighbourhood plans to ensure that they consider climate change mitigation and adaptation apply to street vote proposals, and will similar safeguards be put in place as those that clause 89 provides for in relation to neighbourhood plans, ensuring that street votes cannot be used to block development from taking place?

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

• 19 Jul 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  Although I am more than happy to acknowledge the positive steps taken by the Government on flood prevention and mitigation in recent years, such as the publication of the adaptation communication 18 months ago and the investment allocated to improving flood defences up to 2027, it is clear that there has been an absence of cross-departmental working when it comes to addressing the issue explicitly in the Bill. When the adaptation communication was published in 2020, it promised that climate mitigation would be integrated across Government Departments, including, most importantly in this case, infrastructure and the built environment. It is therefore problematic that the Bill lacks any explicit reference to flood mitigation and, indeed, references the term “flood” only once in relation to what charging authorities may spend the proposed infrastructure levy on. It is laudable that mitigating and responding to climate change has been included in the Bill as a new requirement for development plans and spatial development strategies. However, the Bill as a whole does nowhere near enough to address the specific issue of the susceptibility to flooding experienced by so many of our communities.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

  Clause 88 is a straightforward one in that it merely confirms the statutory role of neighbourhood planning and sets out a list of the policies and requirements that a neighbourhood plan may include. We welcome that confirmation and clarification, as well as the sensible new requirement set out in proposed new subsection (2B) for the qualifying body to design its neighbourhood plan, so far as it considers it appropriate, in such a way that it contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

• 19 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: NEW The UK government's Net-Zero Strategy breached the Climate Change Act, the High Court has ruled I've read the full 59… [Source]

• 19 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @GMB: 'They're falling over each other to run away from it.' Shadow Secretary for climate change @Ed_Miliband tells @edballs that he 'f… [Source]

• 16 Jul 2022: Tweet

  The coming days should convince all but the most obstinate that the climate crisis is already upon us. We are not remotely ready for what is coming. To avoid catastrophic climate breakdown we must disenthrall ourselves from fossil fuel business as usual. [Source]

• 14 Jul 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  ‘mitigation of climate change’ means compliance with the objectives and relevant budgetary provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008;

  ‘adaptation to climate change’ means the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including the mitigation of the risks identified in relation to section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the achievement of the objectives of the relevant flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”

  This amendment requires references to climate change mitigation and adaptation in the inserted sections on plan making to be interpreted in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.

  Of all the challenges we face, the most pressing is that of runaway global heating. Despite the desire of several Conservative party leadership candidates to abandon it, there is broad public support for bold climate action, and a strong cross-party consensus about the importance of the UK’s net zero target. Yet, in its latest annual progress report, the Committee on Climate Change found that the current Government’s policies

  “will not deliver Net Zero”,

  When it comes to planning, one can point to a few exemplar development schemes across England, but, in general terms, we have failed to ensure that the planning system is playing its full part in tackling the climate emergency. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad different ways, whether that be planning decisions enabling the building of new homes in places prone to flooding or unplanned development resulting in new communities that are entirely dependent on cars. More must therefore be done to ensure that the planning system effectively contributes to the delivery of our emission reduction targets and that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places.

  The amendment seeks to achieve that aim by ensuring that the process of plan making is fully aligned with the commitments set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It would do so by clarifying the meaning of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill in such a way as to tie them directly to those Acts, thereby strengthening the duty placed on plan making via a 2008 amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that ensured that all plans contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change.

  By ensuring that there is genuine coherence between the country’s planning system and its climate commitments, the amendment would also provide the foundation for more detailed national policy on how planning will contribute to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and mitigating climate change as fully as possible in the forthcoming NPPF review. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will be able to pick that up and provide us with an update on when we might see that issue addressed in that NPPF review.

  To conclude, we all know that the planning system must be aligned with net zero if we are to achieve our legally binding interim targets. I can think of no reason whatsoever that proposed new section 15LH, set out in schedule 7, should not be amended to give effect to that objective in relation to changes made to plan making in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

  I thank the Minister for that detailed response, but what I did not hear was a convincing argument as to why the Government cannot accept this amendment, which would simply alter the definitions of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill so that they aligned with the legislation that we have been talking about. We feel quite strongly on this matter, and I will press the amendment to a Division.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

• 14 Jul 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  (b) in particular, includes an explanation of how the policy set out takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

  Let me say a little at the outset about why curtailing the strategic planning powers that Greater London enjoys would be harmful. London’s devolved strategic planning powers have been a huge success story over the past two decades under successive mayoral administrations. Since the first draft London plan was published in 2002, successive plans have facilitated a step change in the planning of our country’s only global city. London has been able to lead the way in planning policy approaches in a wide range of areas, whether focused on tackling climate change, addressing biodiversity loss, improving fire safety, addressing poor air quality or increasing the supply of affordable housing and the pace of its delivery.

  We believe that is unnecessarily restrictive. There are many objectives that the London plan should appropriately be working toward that are not specific to the characteristics or circumstances of London, whether that is climate change, biodiversity and green infrastructure, supporting town centres and high streets, or parking and suburban housing development.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

  We support the new power in proposed new section 15A that allows two or more local planning authorities to work together to create one of these strategies. If done well, we believe they that will provide a high-level investment framework, more choice of where to direct development, greater opportunity to deliver sustainable growth and a means of translating national policy priorities, from levelling up to net zero, on a place-based basis.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

• 12 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: Conservative leadership candidate @KemiBadenoch calls net-zero "unilateral economic disarmament", which is strange because… [Source]

• 30 Jun 2022: Tweet

  RT @BBCNewsnight: "It's scandalous that we're building houses that are not fit for the standard we'll need for the net zero economy" @Chie… [Source]

• 29 Jun 2022: Tweet

  The 2022 @theCCCuk progress report finds: ❌ Current government policies “will not deliver net zero” ❌ Only 8 of 50 key indicators on track, with 11 significantly off track ❌ No credible plans exist for 61% of required emissions cuts The Conservatives are failing on climate. [Source]

• 28 Jun 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The Minister dwelled on the OBR in his response. I understand why: he is much more personally familiar with it. He did not touch on the Climate Change Committee, but that should be brought into the debate, not only in terms of the rigour the Committee provides for holding the Government to account on climate targets, which change over time—as when the House updated the Climate Change Act 2008 to take into account the net zero target—but for what it does for the consensus around those goals. It is extremely important.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifth sitting)

• 23 Jun 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  Tony Mulhall: I would like to add to that. We take soundings from our members around the country quite regularly. The sense I get is that members would like to see settled national policy and standards incorporated into these national development management policies, so that the same issues do not keep arising and being reconsidered. It is administratively efficient to do it this way, but it is also in line with the levelling-up agenda, where agreed standards and policies should apply to all areas. Many of the issues that are arising to do with climate change apply across the country. It also avoids the criticism that high planning and development standards can only be had in high-value locations.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)

  Victoria Hills: I think that any further delay to where we are currently—reminding ourselves that this process of the White Paper initially started back in 2020—is something to be avoided, because it creates uncertainty not only for those preparing local plans, but for those who want to bring forward proposals. We would urge that any changes, including the NPPF, come forward quickly—as soon as possible—to get shot of that uncertainty. It is really important. We have seen the slowdown of local plans already. You will be aware that only somewhere in the region of 60% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. There are some really important aspects in the NPPF that we think need to be improved, not least adding in the climate change legal requirement and putting a greater emphasis on that. We would like to see that expedited, and I think that any further delay is not going to be helpful.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)

• 23 Jun 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  On improving the planning system, there are some obvious missed wins there, such as making sure that planning and development decisions are in line with section 1 of the Environment Act 2021 and section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, to meet our carbon budgets and halt nature’s decline by 2030. You could go further, with things like implementing the findings of the Glover review to improve the contribution of national parks to restoring nature here in the UK. So there are some really missed opportunities for positive planning.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)

  Carolyn McKenzie: The earlier speaker made some really good points; I back up all those points, but I will not reiterate them. At the local level, it is very much about integration across different policies. There is some really good stuff in the Bill, but integration across all the different policies will be key. This is not just about the big infrastructure, such as wind farms or EV charging; it is about making sure that environmental considerations are integrated across all projects in infrastructure and all levelling-up projects, because a pound spent on levelling up can deliver on your outcomes for net zero or biodiversity, and investment in net zero and biodiversity can deliver on your levelling-up ambitions as well.

  In addition, although there is a real need for some of the big infrastructure projects, if I take a look at Surrey as a whole and our net zero emissions, the biggest proportion of those emissions, 41%, is down to private sector transport, and 31% to 33% is down to domestic housing. Those local actions—local public transport and active travel to get people out of their cars, and remote working, as well as tackling retrofit—have the potential to not only reduce emissions, but to drive jobs and growth and tackle inequalities, because inequality is hugely linked to the environment: a lot of our poorer communities have the poorest environments. The one thing I will repeat from Richard’s comments is that there is a lack of recognition that a healthy environment for all is really important when it comes to having a healthy economy and a healthy social area as well.

  The last point I would like to make is about taking a place-based approach. Funding is often fragmented, competitive, and focused on specific things like EV cars or renewable energy. At the county level, we are very much looking at a place-based approach where we can link things together and look at a community as a whole. If we could link all that funding together and have a pot that delivers on an evidence-based approach that says what is needed in the area and links up all of our ambitions around health, economy, social and environment, that would be a lot easier, and we could make funding deliver more than the separate, individual pots could. Having place-based funding that is based on local evidence of need would be really helpful.

  Paul Miner: I should say at the beginning that I am speaking today on behalf of CPRE, the countryside charity, and point out that CPRE is leading the Better Planning Coalition, which includes a wide variety of environmental, social and community organisations that have come together to put forward a shared view on how we can improve the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and make it stronger for people and nature more generally. We are working in a number of key areas. Climate change is one of them.

  In CPRE’s view, at the moment the planning system has an institutional weakness in dealing with climate change. There is a duty on local authorities in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for their development plan document—so local plans essentially—to contribute towards the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. However, that duty is not strong enough. It does not consistently influence local authorities or planning inspectors examining plans or appeals. The Bill merely reiterates this existing and insufficient duty. We have seen, for example, recent planning stats reports for 24 recently adopted local plans that show only one mention of climate change for 24 of boosting housing supply. The priorities of the planning system have become massively skewed and unbalanced.

  We want to see in the final version of the Bill some additional clauses that apply the climate change duty both more meaningfully, so that it clearly reiterates the national commitments made in the Climate Change Act 2008, but also applies the climate change duty to national planning policy as well as just local plans. It should also apply to decision making on specific planning applications, as well as just in the making of local plans. We also need to see more detail about what the duty means both in terms of mitigation, achieving Climate Change Act targets on budget and climate budgets, and in terms of adaptation, relating it to relevant statutory risk assessments and compliance. The coalition is coming forward with some further ideas on this, which we are very keen to discuss further with the Committee in due course.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)

  Q In our previous session, we had an interesting and thoughtful discussion with witnesses about how the planning system might help us to respond to the climate and environment emergency. I will finish with a question that I asked in our second session. You will know that nowhere in legislation is the purpose of the planning system set down. Do you think there is any value in more clearly defining in legislation the aims of the planning system on climate change and other issues? Is the Bill an opportunity do to that, and if so, what would that look like?

  If you want this new journey—we all do—to benefit the future of England, you need to need to set down that purpose around sustainable development. That is an inclusive goal; we are already internationally signed up to it, and for me, it is the only development goal that is credible for the future of this nation. Underneath that, I would quickly say that it is heartbreaking to see the potential that planning has to deal with climate change mitigation and adaptation and the dysfunction that we are currently presented with.

  I have just seen an inspector remove a net zero policy from an area action plan for a new development in West Oxfordshire. That tells you that Government policy urgently needs to be reviewed. The whole sector has been calling for an urgent ministerial statement to clarify how net zero is delivered. We really cannot wait for the NPPF review at the end of 2024 for that; it must happen now. On adaptation, the issue is even more serious, in terms of having to begin to think about shifting population off the east coast, the challenges of surface water flooding, the endless flooding in Calder valley and how plans need to grasp the allocation of land for natural flood defence.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)

• 7 Jun 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  In praising the concept of neighbourhood planning, I do not intend to imply that it is problem free. Opposition Members have genuine concerns about the take-up of neighbourhood plans, in the sense that all the evidence suggests that the vast majority of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans made to date emanate from more affluent parts of the country, where people have the time and resources to prepare and implement them, rather than from less affluent areas and more complex urban environments. We also have concerns about the fact that their policy content, in terms of addressing critical issues such as climate change, has been highly variable. Those concerns aside, we continue to support the principle of neighbourhood planning.

  Full debate: Neighbourhood Plans

• 12 May 2022: Tweet

  RT @CampanaleMark: Revealed: the ‘carbon bombs’ set to trigger catastrophic climate breakdown. O&G majors are planning scores of vast proje… [Source]

• 20 Apr 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The first issue is the statutory regulation of the sector. We have come a long way. I remember raising this matter when I was a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change before the Department was abolished, and Ministers would tell me that statutory regulation of the sector was not required, that introducing it risked strangling an emerging industry at birth and that they were not going anywhere near it. I remember asking the CMA— [ Interruption. ]

  Full debate: Energy Price Cap: Residential Buildings with Communal Heating Systems

• 06 Apr 2022: Tweet

  RT @LeoHickman: Editorial in today's FT on new IPCC report: "The science of climate change is now well understood, as are the technical so… [Source]

• 18 Mar 2022: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Nothing demonstrates better that the Tories can’t be trusted to tackle the climate crisis than their party chair telling t… [Source]

• 10 Mar 2022: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: For energy security, to get bills down, and tackle the climate crisis it is time for a green energy sprint. We need go fu… [Source]

• 8 Mar 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The Minister is responsible for the climate change portfolio and net zero policy in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and therefore he will have a keen grasp of the scale of the challenge we face to retrofit our country’s extremely inefficient building stock, and the importance to that national effort of accurate information about current ratings. Given that the regulations relate to the EPC register, I am keen to understand whether the Department knows the exact proportion of buildings in England and Wales that are on that register and, crucially, whether all buildings with EPC ratings are adding their names to that register. How confident is he that it is accurate?

  Full debate: Draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

• 19 Jan 2022: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: The energy crisis is not a result of moving too fast on green energy but too slowly. To keep 1.5 alive and provide energy… [Source]

• 15 Jan 2022: Tweet

  As ever, an insightful piece from @jossgarman about the future prospects of the net zero transition. https://t.co/7QV9DHIr6S [Source]

• 14 Dec 2021: Tweet

  RT @LeoHickman: Major warning signs about rapid climate change are flashing awaying today at both of the planet’s poles. But, no doubt, th… [Source]

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

  Subsidy Control Bill — Schedule 1 - The subsidy control principles - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 1 Dec 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Whether it is progress in relation to a dedicated loss and damage funding facility, efforts to raise ambition when it comes to national climate commitments, or delivering on climate finance and adaptation pledges, implementing the Glasgow agreement will require the work of our COP presidency not only to be sustained but to be enhanced over the next 11 months. Can the President therefore confirm today that the COP26 unit will be fully funded to deliver on all the work programmes mandated in the Glasgow agreement, and that the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero will continue to receive support from the Treasury throughout the remainder of the UK presidency?

  Full debate: COP27: Finance for Loss and Damage

• 01 Dec 2021: Tweet

  Implementing the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed at COP26 will require the Government to fully resource the UK Presidency over the next 11 months. Concerning that the COP President was unable to guarantee this morning that it will be. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1466035553502208003/video/1 [Source]

• 01 Dec 2021: Tweet

  RT @edking_I: Asked by @mtpennycook if UK #COP26 unit will be "fully funded" through 2022 to deliver on Glasgow Pact outcomes, it seems @Al… [Source]

• 17 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @emmagatten: Craig Mackinlay MP, who is leading the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, was in receipt of a Green Homes Grant, he tells the Public… [Source]

• 16 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Will he therefore explain how a decision by the Government to permit Cambo, an oilfield whose anticipated lifespan would see it still producing oil four years before we are legally bound to reach net zero, would be anything other than fundamentally at odds with that vision?

  Full debate: Renewable Energy

• 16 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Q My second question is on the total amount of nuclear capacity we require going forward. I am quite clear in my own mind that the Bill is primarily about Sizewell C, but we have had talk of nuclear fleets, SMRs and what might come forward in years and decades to come. Do any of you challenge the Climate Change Committee’s central scenario of its balance pathway, which is that we need 10 GW total nuclear capacity by 2035, and 8 GW of new build. If you take Sizewell B and C and Hinkley, we are talking about a remaining gap of 1.6 GW to 2.5 GW. Do you work on that assumption? Do you think it should be higher or lower? I am trying to get the sense, beyond Sizewell C, of what this funding model might be used for.

  Tom Thackeray: I think we are comfortable that the Climate Change Committee’s analysis in the balance pathway is a reasonable assumption. We think nuclear will be a strong part of the energy mix in the years ahead. Obviously, we will need a much bigger electricity capacity up to 2050. As we learn more about the process and the cost of technology starts to drop, there might be slight adjusting of those assumptions in years ahead, but at the moment we do not diverge markedly from what the CCC has said.

  Tom Greatrex: It is important to underline that the CCC scenario is for 2035 and towards the sixth carbon budget. I think it is broadly in the right area. The 2050 net zero modelling that was published alongside the energy White Paper has a broader range to 2050. We have to bear in mind, looking beyond 2035 towards 2050 and net zero overall, that the overall proportion of our energy that will come from electricity will be high. It is reasonable to assume that we will be beyond 10 GW by 2050, although 10 GW by 2035 is probably the right ballpark figure.

  Full debate: Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

• 15 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @patrickgaley: I don’t have a single takeaway from #COP26 but I guess my main one is this: Decisions reached and promises made in Glas… [Source]

• 15 Nov 2021: Tweet

  It is deplorable that the day after it approved the Glasgow Climate Pact at #COP26, including its request that parties return next year with stronger 2030 climate targets, the Australian Government issued a statement indicating that its feeble target is fixed. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1460160466118975493/photo/1 [Source]

• 14 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @anuahsa: Either we kill coal or coal will kill us. A phase down of coal won’t save the Maldives and island nations. #COP26 https://t.co… [Source]

• 14 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @mtpennycook: As imperfect as it is the #ParisAgreement is working. But the 1.5C limit remains on life support. If it's not to perish… [Source]

• 13 Nov 2021: Tweet

  As imperfect as it is the #ParisAgreement is working. But the 1.5C limit remains on life support. If it's not to perish major emitters must markedly increase their ambition before COP27 and wealthy nations must finally prioritise climate justice. Keep demanding climate action. [Source]

• 13 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @RoachSN: Marshall Islands: "[The text] moves us toward ending fossil fuel subsidies, which have no place in a sane economy." #COP26 [Source]

• 13 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @NatKeohane: Art 6 is the Paris Agreement’s engine of int’l cooperation, enabling countries to work together to achieve faster, deeper c… [Source]

• 12 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @ClimateHome: Protestors have staged a "walk out" of the #COP26 blue zone just now - they are calling for more climate justice in the Gl… [Source]

• 12 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @CarbonBubble: Turning to the UK's???????? host role as #COP26 Presidency: #BBC News rightly asks why Britain refuses to join the @beyondoilga… [Source]

• 12 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @s_colenbrander: Thinking about the ratchet mechanism of the Paris Agreement. https://t.co/qS9YBFvzUT [Source]

• 12 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @mtpennycook: The launch of the #BeyondOilandGasAlliance at #COP26 today feels genuinely significant. The material impact may be modest… [Source]

• 11 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @adam_tooze: Even as COP26 talks continue the EU has given its backing to 13bn Euros worth of new gas infrastructure projects! https://… [Source]

• 11 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @UNClimateSummit: Last night ????????Saudi Arabia tried to remove any mention of fossil fuels from the COP26 deal - this is a pattern of behav… [Source]

• 11 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @ChloeFarand: Costa Rica & Denmark are pointing out the elephant in the room #COP26 : meeting 1.5C requires a managed decline of oil and… [Source]

• 11 Nov 2021: Tweet

  The launch of the #BeyondOilandGasAlliance at #COP26 today feels genuinely significant. The material impact may be modest but it focuses attention on the root cause of global heating: fossil fuel supply. The UK govt needs to abandon the Cambo oil field project and get on board. [Source]

• 11 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @jossgarman: European leadership totally absent at #COP26 - collateral damage from Brexit? Childish snub to Boris? Or just distracted by… [Source]

• 11 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @antonioguterres: One day before the end of #COP26, we cannot settle for the lowest common #ClimateAction denominator. I appeal to all… [Source]

• 10 Nov 2021: Tweet

  With countries having spent trillions on coal, oil and gas since the #ParisAgreement it's right that the draft #COP26 cover decision ref the need to "accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels". Attempts to remove this from the final text must be resisted. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1458366708545212418/photo/1 [Source]

• 09 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @Jess_Shankleman: In the middle of hosting #COP26, the U.K Government is refusing to join an alliance led by Denmark and Costa Rica to f… [Source]

• 09 Nov 2021: Tweet

  In more welcome news, the expanding @HACoalition has made clear it supports a #COP26 deal targeting a 1.5C heating limit, doubling adaptation finance and slashing fossil-fuel subsidies. Time for the @EU_Commission to get on board. https://www.highambitioncoalition.org/statements/cochair-summary-april-2021-9n7c5-z7kxl-733k4-k2c9b [Source]

• 09 Nov 2021: Tweet

  It feels like an extremely precarious moment at #COP26: a startling lack of solidarity with climate-vulnerable states, complacency on ambition, and efforts to thwart progress on transparency and fossil fuels left unchecked. The US and EU in particular need to act or risk failure. [Source]

• 08 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @alanwhiteheadmp: We’re way past the point on the road to #NetZero where the government can get away with bold-sounding targets and gene… [Source]

• 08 Nov 2021: Tweet

  Confidence in the efficacy of the #ParisAgreement is on the line in the five days of #COP26 that remain. Countries must step up and agree: ✅ A plan to get on track for 1.5C this decade ✅ More support for vulnerable nations ✅ A robust rulebook ✅ Action on fossil fuel supply [Source]

• 08 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @mohadow: At COP26 there has been two realities this week, one is the world of press releases by the UK Government announcing a host of… [Source]

• 08 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @mtpennycook: Progress has been made in week one of #COP26. And the blitz of side deals announced will, if delivered, make a difference… [Source]

• 05 Nov 2021: Tweet

  Great to see @CFigueres personally endorse the call for more regular reviews of national climate plans post-COP26. Limiting global heating to 1.5C requires emissions to fall 45% by the end of this decade. The world cannot wait until 2025 to increase ambition further. https://twitter.com/CFigueres/status/1456341527001763845 [Source]

• 05 Nov 2021: Tweet

  Progress has been made in week one of #COP26. And the blitz of side deals announced will, if delivered, make a difference. But the world is still way off track for a 2C heating limit, let alone 1.5C. The focus must return to near-term targets, transparency and accountability. [Source]

• 05 Nov 2021: Tweet

  A reality check from the @UNFCCC. Updated analysis they published yesterday makes clear that even as #netzero pledges proliferate, the sum total of current 2030 targets would still see global emissions increase by 13.7% on 2010 levels. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/message_to_parties_and_observers_on_ndc_numbers.pdf [Source]

• 04 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @patrickgaley: Poland's energy minister confirming coal exit set for 2049, not in the 2030s as has been suggested by #COP26 hosts https… [Source]

• 04 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @j_flisowska: ????At the @COP26 Poland has declared to #EndCoal. It's good news but it has to be followed by a clear schedule to phase out… [Source]

• 3 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Several Members, including the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), argued that nuclear should not form any part of the UK’s future low-carbon energy mix. We on this side of the House respect their strongly held views on the subject, but we take the view, as does the Committee on Climate Change, that a limited amount of new nuclear is required to achieve the decarbonisation of the UK’s electricity system within the next 14 years, and to meet our longer-term net zero target. Since Sizewell C is the only power station that can now feasibly come online within that timeframe, we want to ensure that it does, in order to provide the necessary amount of firm power to support a predominantly renewable energy mix.

  Full debate: Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

  I think we will need a range of technologies. Let me return to a point that has been made by several Members. I think we must take a lead from the Committee on Climate Change, which made its view very clear in its balanced pathway scenario for the sixth carbon budget. It estimates that we will need 10 GW of nuclear power by 2035. We will have a predominantly renewable energy system, but we do need the firm power that comes from a limited degree of nuclear to support that.

  Full debate: Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

• 03 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @HannaHakko: Not much new in PM Kishida's statement at #COP26. To be fair, Japan's NDC (46-50% by 2030) and energy strategy were already… [Source]

• 2 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  8. What fiscal steps he is taking to contribute towards achieving the Government’s net zero emissions target.

  Full debate: Net Zero Emissions

  There is an obvious and pressing need for all fiscal announcements to be fully aligned with our country’s net zero target. To that end, will the Minister commit herself to at least the publication of the estimated emissions impact of decisions in future Budgets and spending reviews?

  Full debate: Net Zero Emissions

• 02 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @edking_I: Some serious shade being thrown on Brazil's "new" #climate target... analyst tells me although the % increased from 43% of re… [Source]

• 02 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @jjaron: So bored of gotchas over world leaders taking jets to COP26, food suppliers not being sustainable, etc. These don't illustrate… [Source]

• 02 Nov 2021: Tweet

  Also worth making clear that India is unlikely to achieve net zero, even in 2070, without a rapid shift away from coal. It has a huge amount of coal power under construction and more in the pipeline. No explicit announcement on the issue yesterday – it will need to be confronted. [Source]

• 01 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @CoalFreeDave: My reaction: "This is great, but these netzero ambitions now need to transform into near-term action on coal. Coal will n… [Source]

• 01 Nov 2021: Tweet

  I think the negative reactions to India’s new climate pledge may be mistaken. Yes, net zero by 2070 is late but the 2030 targets - 500GW of non-fossil fuel energy capacity, 50% renewable, a billion tonnes of CO2 reduction - imply a 2030s peak. Not enough but still significant. [Source]

• 01 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @antonioguterres: #COP26 must be a moment of solidarity. The $100 billion a year climate finance commitment in support of developing co… [Source]

• 01 Nov 2021: Tweet

  The 1.5C emissions gap was never going to be closed at #COP26 but we need a collective understanding of what level of global ambition must emerge from Glasgow to keep 1.5C alive as well as agreement, as I argued in Parliament last week, on more regular reviews of climate plans. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1455144668207984640/photo/1 [Source]

• 01 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @UKLabour: The Conservatives’ https://t.co/iYCxhJKffR approach to #COP26 doesn't work. This is the decisive decade to tackle the climat… [Source]

• 01 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @siberian_times: As world leaders continue working in Glasgow/UN Climate Change Conference, here is our postcard from Siberia, highlight… [Source]

• 31 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @lauriegoering: G20 deal looking thin on detail on climate action. "“If the G20 was a dress rehearsal for #COP26 then world leaders fluf… [Source]

• 31 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @EleniCourea: Final communique on climate change that's circulating in the G20 pledges to ????️Keep 1.5C as the goal 0⃣ Hit net zero ‘by o… [Source]

• 31 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @SimonLLewis: On the train to Glasgow for #COP26, taking the less manic route via Edinburgh. I hope all the activists’ plans all go we… [Source]

• 31 Oct 2021: Tweet

  Real climate leadership #COP26 https://t.co/KFn68uJkYC [Source]

• 29 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @catabreu_: “It’s time we close the growing gap between fossil fuel production and our climate targets.” Costa Rica & Denmark Ministers… [Source]

• 29 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: .@BorisJohnson the problem is you’re not supposed to be the commentator, you’re meant to be the manager… Cop26: Humanity… [Source]

• 29 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @COP26: "Staying below 1.5 degrees is the only chance we have of avoiding these tipping points and stabilising our world again" Hear fr… [Source]

• 29 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @crisortunity: It’s what it exposes about the ideological limits to this government’s response to the climate crisis that bothers me mos… [Source]

• 28 Oct 2021: Tweet

  World leaders are going to have to make a choice in Glasgow: are they serious about delivering on the Paris Agreement or are they content to hurtle toward climate catastrophe? Limiting global heating to 1.5C requires rapid and unprecedented action. There can be no half measures. [Source]

• 28 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @FredSimonEU: China will present its updated Nationally Determined Contribution (#NDC) for #COP26 today, EU journalists just heard from… [Source]

• 28 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @NadiaWhittomeMP: COP26 is *this Sunday* and Budget 2021 contained barely any pledges to help us transition to a low-carbon economy. Bu… [Source]

• 28 Oct 2021: Tweet

  At #PMQs yesterday Boris Johnson declared that in a pre-COP26 conversation Indonesian President Widodo had agreed to bring forward the date his country will cease using coal by 15 years to 2040. This PM would never play fast and loose with the truth so it must be true right? https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1453647397507174405/photo/1 [Source]

• 28 Oct 2021: Tweet

  The #netzero plan published this week by Australia’s Morrison govt is all smoke and mirrors. This is a great thread exposing the dishonesty of the 2030 "projections" they've put forward. We need agreement at #COP26 on robust transparency rules so laggards can’t game the system. https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1452953466909954062 [Source]

• 26 Oct 2021: Tweet

  The 2021 @UNEP Emissions Gap report highlights the gulf between the world's current 2030 climate targets and what is needed by that date to limit global heating to 1.5C. We need an open debate about what more major emitters must do at #COP26 to narrow it. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021 [Source]

• 25 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @Channel4News: Just days before COP26 begins - in a clip provided to broadcasters by the government - Boris Johnson says “we don’t want… [Source]

• 25 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @tancopsey: Today's big climate finance announcement: * Won't get to $100 Billion until 2023. * Countries aren't liable for back paymen… [Source]

• 25 Oct 2021: Tweet

  It is of the utmost concern that the 2009 $100bn climate finance pledge will not be honoured until 2023. This is a matter of trust for states on the frontline of the climate crisis and every wealthy country falling short, including the UK, will need to do more to reassure them. [Source]

• 25 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @Energy_in_Asia: Well, breaking news will now keep coming every day ahead of #COP26 but this one could have MASSIVE implications for glo… [Source]

• 25 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @rkyte365: Scopes 1, 2 and 3 and then there is Scope Saudi. #COP26 @cop26 [Source]

• 23 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @AkshatRathi: BREAKING: - Saudi Arabia commits to net-zero emissions by 2060 - Joins the Global Methane Pledge to reduce emissions of… [Source]

• 21 Oct 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Many critical issues need to be resolved at COP26, from finalising the Paris rulebook to essential specific side deals on such issues as the phasing out of coal, reductions in methane emissions and deforestation. However, given the prominent themes of this afternoon’s debate, I will focus my remarks on two key areas where decisive progress must be made at COP26, if it is not to be deemed a failure. The first is whether sufficiently ambitious near-term climate commitments can be secured to at least keep alive the hope of limiting global heating to 1.5°C. The second is whether the developed world will finally deliver for the developing in terms of climate finance and other forms of support.

  He was right to set himself and the world that test. Opposition Members have long called for delivering on the upper ambition of the Paris agreement to be the overriding priority for the conference. Anything else would send a clear signal that the UK was content to aim for an outcome that puts at risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said in his remarks, the very survival of vulnerable states on the frontline of the climate crisis.

  That failure is all the more perplexing given how clear the science is. We know that for a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°, we need to halve global emissions by the end of this decade. We know that as a world, we are alarmingly off track, with the nationally determined contributions synthesis report published by the United Nations framework convention on climate change last month making it clear that, far from slashing emissions as required, current country pledges would lead to an increase in emissions of around 16% on 2010 levels by 2030, putting us on course for a disastrous 2.7° of heating, as many Members have said. I say to the Minister that the Government must now be open and honest with the country and the world about how much of the gap needs to be closed at Glasgow to keep 1.5° alive and what individual countries must do, in particular those major emitters who have yet to submit updated pledges, for that happen.

  The Government also need to be clear about what more the world will have to do in the next few years, post COP26, to close the gap entirely. It is now abundantly clear that we cannot wait four years, or even until the global stocktake in 2023, to increase global ambition still further, if the world is to be put firmly on a 1.5° pathway. The Climate Vulnerable Forum recently proposed an emergency pact that would see states agree to return at each of the next three COPs with more ambitious targets, rather than waiting until 2025. It was telling that the COP President alluded to that proposal in his speech in Paris last week. When she responds, will the Minister confirm whether the COP President will be actively seeking agreement in Glasgow on a more regular ratchet mechanism to ensure that we make the requisite progress on mitigation in this decisive decade?

  As my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Leeds East and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and others, said, more than anything, solidarity with those states is dependent on the developed world finally honouring the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to help developing nations to transition and adapt. Yet, with just 10 days left, a staggering $14-billion shortfall remains, and there is no sign of the promised German-Canadian delivery plan. We need clarity from the Government as to what progress they now expect on that issue before delegates arrive in Glasgow, and I urge the Minister to update the House on that.

  As important as that $100 billion is, it is not the extent of the finance and support that developing countries will need. The world also needs to agree a significant increase on the $100 billion for the period up to 2025; to begin the process of establishing a post-2025 climate finance goal; to make tangible progress on ensuring that at least half of all climate funding is allocated to adaptation and that the balance shifts away from loans towards grants; and to deliver meaningful support, including financing, to address loss and damage and get the Santiago Network up and running, as the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) mentioned. Demands for progress in each of those areas have been made at COP after COP after COP, and Glasgow must be the occasion when the developed world finally acts to deliver on them.

  Finally, I will touch briefly on the domestic situation, which has been a prominent theme of the debate. Of course the summit’s outcome will be shaped by prevailing geopolitical headwinds and any agreement that emerges will be the product of a phenomenally complex international negotiation, but it would be wrong to portray the role of the COP President as merely a convener or neutral broker. Those are key aspects of the role, but being the host state also confers on us a duty to set the pace on all aspects of the net zero transition and so maximise our influence in the negotiations and the chance of a successful outcome.

  Opposition Members do not deny that the UK has set an example in several important areas, including publishing a detailed, albeit flawed, net zero strategy. One need only look, however, at the Treasury’s failure to lock in a genuinely green economic recovery by decisively closing the net zero investment gap to see that the Government have patently not been an exemplar across the board on climate policy and that there is much more they could do.

  COP26 is our last best chance to show that the Paris agreement and climate multilateralism more generally work. Whether it is convincing G20 countries to do more, delivering for the developing world, or revisiting what exemplary climate action might be taken in the Budget and the comprehensive spending review here at home, the Government must now do whatever it takes to ensure this critical summit is the “turning point for humanity” that the Prime Minister has declared it will be.

  Full debate: COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

• 21 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @gfhay: Reuters Exclusive - Indian PM Modi will attend Glasgow climate conference. [Source]

• 20 Oct 2021: Tweet

  A successful #COP26 depends on developed countries finally honouring their 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to help developing nations transition and adapt. It is essential that the commitment is met before the summit begins. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1450810989075648519/video/1 [Source]

• 20 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @ianmulheirn: This is just wrong isn’t it? The Treasury view of the 2020s as misguided as the Treasury View of the 1930s… #NetZero https… [Source]

• 20 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @joeloyo: Second misleading Times front page this week. First, they said Xi is snubbing Cop26 (he hasn’t left China since pandemic) and… [Source]

• 19 Oct 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For many months, we have awaited three key climate strategies that were promised before COP26: the heat and building strategy, the net zero strategy, and the final Treasury net zero review. The statement that has just concluded covered two of those strategies but did not, in any way, touch on the third—namely, the Treasury net zero review. Have you had an explanation as to why the Treasury net zero review was not covered in the statement and whether there will be a statement from a Treasury Minister in due course so that Members can properly interrogate and ask questions about it?

  Full debate: Point of Order

• 19 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: The Chancellor's Net Zero Review fails to rise to the climate challenge. His lack of action will make costs spiral and… [Source]

• 19 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: In House of Commons, Greg Hands refuses to say that his net zero strategy meets the 6th carbon budget for 2035. Once again… [Source]

• 19 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @SebHenbest: Lots of agreement at #bnefsummit that #COP26 has got to keep 1.5 degrees in reach. But amount of deployment required to get… [Source]

• 18 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @daisydunnesci: Exclusive: 70 climate scientists urge PM to end new oil and gas investment ahead of Cop26 List includes @FrediOtto @DrJ… [Source]

• 13 Oct 2021: Tweet

  The test of a successful #COP26 is to keep 1.5C within reach. Yet in today's #WEO2021 the @IEA makes clear that current climate pledges put the world on course for more than 2C of heating. Johnson needs to put down his paint brush and convince all the major emittors to deliver. [Source]

• 13 Oct 2021: Tweet

  RT @KayBurley: Get off the sun lounger and start getting serious on climate change, @Ed_Miliband tells the PM. The Shadow Business Sec has… [Source]

• 11 Oct 2021: Tweet

  21 days until #COP26 begins and we still have no: ❌Comprehensive net zero strategy ❌Treasury Net Zero Review ❌Heat and Buildings Strategy Not exactly suggestive of a government straining every sinew to demonstrate how to deliver on climate commitments ahead of the summit. [Source]

• 29 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @Independent: UK government ‘culpable’ for climate failures ahead of Cop26, says Ed Miliband https://t.co/rBkFrbu1Zl [Source]

• 28 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: We cannot dither and delay when it comes to tackling climate breakdown. The costs will only keep building up. That's… [Source]

• 27 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @DuncanWeldon: Labour pledge of £28bn a year for climate investment for 8 years is a BIG deal. [Source]

• 27 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @PippaCrerar: ????Big surprise fr @RachelReevesMP with £28bn A YEAR pledge to tackle climate change. Money for green jobs, battery giga-fa… [Source]

• 26 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @labourpress: “As we respond to the climate crisis with all the transformation that entails we have a fateful choice to make: We can try… [Source]

• 21 Sep 2021: Tweet

  While not enough to make up its fair share, Biden's commitment at #UNGA to double US climate finance to $11.4bn per year is very welcome. Failure on the $100bn is tainting #COP26 negotiations. Other wealthy nations must now step up so the 2009 pledge can finally be honoured. [Source]

• 21 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @PEspinosaC: With little time left until #COP26, billions around the world look to their leaders to make the bold & courageous decisions… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @alextomo: Johnson rating the chances of the big funding breakthrough needed before the vital climate summit in November in Glasgow as 6… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2021: Tweet

  The amount of economic stimulus that the Johnson government has directed toward decarbonisation has been distinctly underwhelming. Might be an idea to convince your own Chancellor to lock in a genuine green economic recovery from the crisis before making the case to the world. https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1439706594888007683 [Source]

• 18 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: With 6 weeks to go until COP26 it’s now or never for the government to get its act together: they must honour our promises… [Source]

• 18 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @KetanJ0: The actions that countries have promised on climate change are really, really, really badly insufficient. New @UNFCCC report… [Source]

• 17 Sep 2021: Tweet

  Today's OECD figures lay bare the glacial rate of progress on climate finance over recent years. Honouring the annual $100bn commitment to developing countries is a prerequisite for a successful #COP26. This issue must be a whole-of-Government priority in the weeks ahead. [Source]

• 17 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @LeoHickman: Pressure intensifying ahead of COP26.... "Climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries for developing cou… [Source]

• 16 Sep 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Let me state at the outset, as indeed I have on each of the all too infrequent occasions this place has considered COP26, that I very much hope we will have more debates on this important subject in the 46 days that remain before the start of the conference. This is a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating, and the lives of each and every one of our constituents will be affected by its outcome. I think it is still fair to say that this House has not been given sufficient opportunity to engage properly with the summit in the way it should have been, given its significance.

  We have heard many thoughtful speeches covering a wide range of issues relating to COP26 and the devolved Administrations. I draw the House’s attention, in particular, to the strong contribution made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, the excellent contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and the passionate speech by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), whose contributions I always enjoy and who rightly stressed that while we must have a just transition we must also have climate action at pace and at scale, not least because every year that we delay that action, that transition will become more disruptive for the people we represent.

  There is already debate under way internationally about whether the role of devolved Governments, as well as regions and cities, should be more prominent in the UNFCCC process, and if so, how. For example, should their efforts be formally considered as part of the periodic global stock-takes of the Paris agreement so as to provide for a more accurate sense of where individual countries are in implementing their climate commitments? Of course, when it comes to the negotiations themselves, and our country’s role as the host of COP26, primary responsibility lies with the UK Government as the formal party to the UNFCCC. However, as this debate has aptly illustrated, all the constituent parts of the UK clearly have an important contribution to make in ensuring that the summit is a success, and a role in shaping the objectives and efforts of the COP presidency that we hold.

  As a number of hon. Members mentioned, the COP26 devolved Administrations ministerial group is the primary mechanism through which the latter can happen, but I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will go away and consider whether they have got the balance right in the extent and nature of the engagement—and, one would hope, collaboration and co-ordination—that has taken place to date, and whether it might in any way be improved on over the coming weeks. Ultimately, we cannot allow tensions between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations—or, for that matter, as several hon. Members said, any constitutional bickering—to put at risk in any way the outcome of this important international event.

  Much of the debate has focused on the record of the devolved Administrations as regards their role in UK-wide emissions reductions. That was obviously to be expected, not least because the main input that devolved Governments in general have in domestic implementation and reporting under the UNFCCC process is through the Marrakech partnership for global climate action. However, given the centrality of delivering on our domestic climate commitments to the success of our COP presidency, both in establishing our country’s credibility and in maximising its influence as hosts of the conference, we would argue that the devolved Administrations’ efforts in this regard are just as important to the outcome of COP26 as their ability to directly influence the Government’s negotiating objectives and efforts.

  Several hon. Members referred to the record of the Welsh Government, who have not only legislated for a net zero target but published a series of detailed strategies to ensure that that target is met, and are using the policy levers at their disposal to drive decarbonisation efforts, whether that be the use of planning and marine policy to reduce fossil fuel extraction, their innovative housing and optimised retrofit programme, or their success in ensuring that more than 50% of the energy that Wales consumes comes from renewable sources.

  Northern Ireland, of course, faces a unique set of circumstances, and concrete progress in areas such as transport has been held back by the failure to deliver on key promises made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Even so, the Executive in Northern Ireland are in the process of legislating for a climate change Bill. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is no longer in his place, mentioned in his intervention, it is incredibly important—I hope the Minister takes this on board—that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure political stability in Northern Ireland, not least to help get that legislation through, if possible, before the next set of elections.

  When it comes to Scotland, we rightly acknowledge that the Scottish Government have set an ambitious 2045 net zero target and that the Scottish climate change plan has been updated to integrate it, but it is also the case that the SNP Scottish Government have failed to meet their emissions reductions targets for three years running and—I think SNP Members would agree with this—without an acceleration in progress on delivery, beyond the power sector, Scotland will achieve neither the net zero target it chose to set itself nor its interim target of a reduction in emissions of 75% by 2030. Nor—this is the one partisan point I will make in what has been a good-natured debate, but I think it warrants saying—will Scotland’s claim to climate leadership be taken seriously if the SNP Scottish Government fail to take a firm stand against projects such as the development of the Cambo oilfield, which I would argue are at odds with that net zero target.

  Full debate: COP26: Devolved Administrations

  Ultimately, we all must do more. If each of the devolved Administrations is to exploit the climate action opportunities available to them in key areas such as agriculture, tree planting, waste management, buildings efficiency and public transport, they require a comprehensive net zero strategy from the UK Government and, we would argue, as part of that strategy, a framework for delivery covering every level of sub-national governance.

  That point brings me neatly back to the UK Government, and I will begin to bring my remarks to a conclusion at this point, not least because many colleagues want to speak in the next debate. As much as the devolved Administrations can and must do everything within their power to help ensure COP26 is a success, they will be held back unless and until the UK Government do the same. I have to take issue with the contribution from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who seemed to suggest that any attempt to chide the UK Government’s record when it comes to climate and any attempt to push the Government to do better somehow undermines the Prime Minister at negotiations. It is precisely because we want to strengthen the UK Government’s hand that we are arguing that we have to get our own house in order before 1 November and that crucial conference.

  It will only be by beginning that conference having unequivocally established our country’s credibility as a climate leader here at home that we will have the necessary influence as host in the critical moments that are bound to arise during the negotiations. That means getting on track for net zero, not just announcing the target. It means showing that we are prioritising decarbonisation across the whole of Government, that we have a comprehensive plan for achieving net zero, that we have locked in a genuine green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis, and that all decisions the Government make, whether they relate to potential deep coalmines in Cumbria or new fossil fuel projects in the North sea, are entirely consistent with our net zero target. They are not at present.

  The Government now have precious little time left to bolster their domestic credibility and to secure the wide range of other pre-conference outcomes necessary to make COP26 a success, not least ensuring that the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to the developing world is honoured by the end of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly later this month. We must look at our Government’s contribution to that commitment. Put simply, every sinew must be strained in the weeks ahead, or we run the very real risk of failure in Glasgow in November. Were that to happen, it would not only be an embarrassment for the Government, but a disaster for our planet. We owe it to future generations to do everything we possibly can to make this conference a success.

  Full debate: COP26: Devolved Administrations

• 16 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @SteveAkehurst: I wrote something on why climate change is not (yet) a 'culture war' issue in the UK. Elite cues matter and so does clim… [Source]

• 16 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @timbolord: Net zero is one of the most complex portfolios in government, but @annietrev's appointment to DIT means we're on to our four… [Source]

• 15 Sep 2021: Tweet

  @Chrvalu I'm hopinh to Valerie but I'm responding to a debate on COP26 in the main chamber so I can't guarantee I will be able to. Fully aware of the level of concern among residents and I'm doing eveyrything I can to asssit. [Source]

• 15 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @KarlMathiesen: In #SOTEU @vonderleyen says Europe will give an additional €4 billion for climate finance for developing countries to co… [Source]

• 14 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @e_casalicchio: Liz Truss tells me the claims Australia has dropped climate targets in its trade deal with the UK is "fake news." [Source]

• 14 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @ed_hawkins: Choices at COP26 https://t.co/KmS0Adiee4 [Source]

• 14 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @SMFthinktank: ???? Search our interactive Net Zero Opportunity Index, revealing that the North of England, Midlands and Wales are the regi… [Source]

• 14 Sep 2021: Tweet

  The climate crisis is upon us and we have a choice to make. We can listen to those who seek to frustrate and delay bold climate action or we can confront this emergency head on, create millions of decent, well-paid jobs, and secure a socially just and liveable future. [Source]

• 13 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @BBCNewsnight: TONIGHT: With just weeks to go until November's global climate summit in Glasgow, COP26, we will be joined in the studio… [Source]

• 13 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @angeladewan: If Australia's allies were worried that the country might cause them problems at upcoming #COP26 climate talks in Glasgow,… [Source]

• 13 Sep 2021: Tweet

  The credibility of the UK's #COP26 Presidency depends upon demonstrable leadership at home. With 49 days left until this critical summit begins, the Government remains way off track to meet its climate targets. We need an urgent step change in delivery. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58520330 [Source]

• 11 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @EcoGwen: Less than two months out from #COP26, ministers have shockingly agreed to remove important references to the Paris Agreement f… [Source]

• 10 Sep 2021: Tweet

  The Least Developed Countries grouping has issued a statement setting out their concerns about COP26. - "With less than seven weeks before the LDC Group is due to meet in Glasgow, the COP26 Presidency must clearly communicate their plan for ensuring a safe and inclusive COP”. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1436318372354985984/photo/1 [Source]

• 10 Sep 2021: Tweet

  It was a real pleasure to meet with some of those who took part in the UK's first citizens’ climate change assembly in Parliament yesterday. If you haven't seen it, I urge you to spend an hour of your time watching this documentary about their journey: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p097sbzc/the-people-vs-climate-change [Source]

• 10 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @Bankfieldbecky: On that "net zero coal mine" - turns out the offset company that @WCumbriaMining were planning to use, don't want their… [Source]

• 10 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @AntonSpisak: The UK government likes to talk about its commitment to net zero. But when it has an opportunity to act to meet its loud r… [Source]

• 10 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @tnewtondunn: Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A… [Source]

• 08 Sep 2021: Tweet

  As COP26 hosts, the Government should be seeking international agreement on a managed and fair phase-out of fossil fuels across the globe. https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1435622144441032710 [Source]

• 07 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @riamatic: .@TheCVF countries - some of the most vulnerable in the world - set out what’s needed at #cop26 in Glasgow this November, sta… [Source]

• 07 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @ClaudioMagliulo: My 2 cents ⬇️ Honestly I'm quite surprised seeing the shocked reactions at CAN's call to postpone #COP26. COPs are alr… [Source]

• 07 Sep 2021: Tweet

  The fact that @CANIntl is now calling for the postponement of #COP26 reveals the depth of concern that exists about current planning. The Government must now step up and do what is necessary to ensure the Glasgow summit is safe and genuinely inclusive. https://climatenetwork.org/can-cop26-postponement-statement/ [Source]

• 03 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @Mabeytweet: Playing geopolitical chicken with climate change is not a good look for any country - especially one who wants support from… [Source]

• 02 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @michaelholder: Chris Stark (@ChiefExecCCC) sums up the net zero transition: "It is primarily an investment challenge for the country,… [Source]

• 02 Sep 2021: Tweet

  RT @ChloeFarand: It's less than two months to Cop26 and most campaigners from developing countries have heard nothing about how to get jabb… [Source]

• 31 Aug 2021: Tweet

  This is climate leadership. https://t.co/kI17BIOfwx [Source]

• 26 Aug 2021: Tweet

  RT @dwallacewells: If we had begun decarbonizing in pursuit of 1.5C when the first IPCC Assessment was published, we could have taken more… [Source]

• 26 Aug 2021: Tweet

  "Chairing the Cop26 conference on climate change ought to be taken as an opportunity to exercise global leadership...Sadly, despite various green initiatives, there is a worrying lack of dynamism emanating from the government". https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-uk-foreign-policy-fresh-alliances-j5psvqwgk [Source]

• 17 Aug 2021: Tweet

  RT @EmmaEHoward: The quality of the political debate on climate change in 2021: https://t.co/ZHhFaAdIkH https://t.co/pzYcUCrjnq [Source]

• 04 Aug 2021: Tweet

  "Five years ago, a COP26 that fails would have been an environmental disaster but not a political one. But times have changed, and so has the weather...Voters in Britain, as well as the world, now expect. Johnson has less than three months left to save it". https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1422910412534730756 [Source]

• 03 Aug 2021: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: The world needs a historic result at COP26 in Glasgow. It's an opportunity for Britain to lead the world - and create go… [Source]

• 03 Aug 2021: Tweet

  RT @guardian: Britain could be taking the lead in tackling the climate crisis. Where’s the ambition? | Keir Starmer https://t.co/lsilg44hqn [Source]

• 03 Aug 2021: Tweet

  RT @guardian: Boris Johnson ‘missing in action’ ahead of vital climate talks, says Keir Starmer https://t.co/TYI44QaocT [Source]

• 30 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @guardianeco: Foreign control of North Sea oil licences threatens UK’s net zero goal https://t.co/IGX6Zwdolu [Source]

• 30 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @YDagnet: UK @COP26 Presidency on the climate ministerial: “Countries were clear that COP26 needed to deliver actions, not just words” –… [Source]

• 30 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @BBCNewsnight: The UK is already undergoing disruptive climate change with increased rainfall, sunshine and temperatures, according to s… [Source]

• 29 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @BBCNewsnight: "Delaying climate action is as bad as denying climate change has always been." Shadow minister for climate change @mtpen… [Source]

• 29 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @BBCNewsnight: TONIGHT: The UK is already undergoing disruptive climate change according to scientists. So how do we tackle it? We spea… [Source]

• 29 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @Channel4News: The chief executive of a North Sea oil company has said the climate emergency is “fake” in now deleted tweets from his pe… [Source]

• 29 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: This report is yet more confirmation that the climate crisis is not just a future threat but the new reality. We need to s… [Source]

• 27 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @darrenpjones: Freezing left over bread is not going to decarbonise our buildings and heating and transport infrastructure. Time to get… [Source]

• 26 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @UNFCCC: "We are not on track to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting climate change to 1.5°C by the end of the century. In fa… [Source]

• 26 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @edking_I: 'China's carbon neutrality is not CO2 neutrality, but the neutrality of all greenhouse gases' - Beijing's special #climate en… [Source]

• 23 Jul 2021: Tweet

  As I argued in a debate in the Commons yesterday on COP26 priorities: we urgently need the Prime Minister and other senior ministers to intensify their efforts if we're to ensure the Glasgow conference is a success. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1418487318609076224/photo/1 [Source]

• 22 Jul 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  We really do need more debates of this kind over the next 100 days. COP26 is, as others have said, a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating, the impact of which we have seen over recent months in the devastating extreme weather events across the globe. The House has a real duty to engage with the complexities of this summit far more than it has done to date.

  I will be more generous in saying that, although it needs to be built on further, there has been a noticeable sharpening of focus over recent months, particularly when it comes to being explicit about the objective that Labour believes must be the overriding priority for the summit, and that is the need to put the world decisively on course to deliver the upper ambition—it is only the upper ambition—of the Paris agreement, namely limiting global heating to 1.5° over pre-industrial levels. The problem is, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, that there is clearly not yet a global consensus on 1.5° being a core objective of the summit, as opposed to merely an aspiration. Indeed, Bloomberg reported just this morning that for the second time this month, G20 climate Ministers are struggling to reach agreement on that 1.5° target. We believe that, over the coming weeks, keeping 1.5° within reach must be hardened into a headline target for the summit. It is incumbent on us, as the host of COP26, to do everything possible to ensure it is.

  Let me pick up some of the themes of the debate. I want to touch on four areas where greater progress is absolutely essential if we are to realise that aim, with an explicit focus not on the domestic but on the international, given that this is an international summit. First, the Government need to do much more with the presidency to initiate a genuine global debate on how we deliver at the scale and pace that the science requires. In particular, we need much more openness and transparency about the commitments required from each of the parties by the time they arrive in Glasgow to ensure that a limit of 1.5° remains a possibility. Put simply, if current country climate plans have the world emitting, as they do, about 54 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, and 1.5° requires that they fall to about 24 gigatonnes by that date, what collective commitments do we need in November at COP26 to put the world on course to meet that 30 gigatonne ambition gap by the end of the next nine years? That is the question, but there is no real debate around it at present and, in its absence, no collective understanding of what is necessary to keep 1.5° within reach.

  Secondly—this is a point that a number of hon. Members raised, particularly the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—when it comes to mitigation ambition, we are currently way off track as a world. With just 100 days to go, the Government need to be straining every sinew possible to persuade, cajole and pressure those who have not yet done so to bring forward more ambitious nationally determined contributions. Countries such as Brazil that are making a mockery of the ratchet process by submitting new targets that are less ambitious than their previous ones need to be called out; those such as India and Saudi Arabia that are resisting the very proposition that the Paris agreement requires them to revisit their current plans at all need to be persuaded to think again, and quickly; and key allies such as Australia that are stubbornly refusing to improve on their inadequate 2030 targets need to start facing some public opprobrium for doing so. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether she agrees with those points.

  Thirdly, as others have said, we have to make good on the promise of building back greener, not only in terms of domestic credibility and what that means in terms of our consistency and our leadership of the conference. The Chancellor has now passed up three fiscal opportunities, by my count—the 2020 summer statement, the 2020 comprehensive spending review, and the 2021 Budget—to lock in a genuine green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis, with only £9.3 billion of funding focused on decarbonisation, £1 billion of which has been cut in the new green homes grant. That is dwarfed by levels of funding in other countries around the world, but the Chancellor’s failure is not unique: the International Energy Agency’s sustainable energy tracker estimates that only 2% of fiscal support across the globe is being directed towards clean energy investment. That is lower than the level of green spending we saw in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The world has simply got to do better if we are going to lock in that green recovery.

  The Minister may not say so, but she knows as well as I do the serious damage that the decision to cut the overseas aid budget has caused to our standing with those on the frontline of the climate crisis. She will also know how critical trust will be if we are to secure a successful outcome in Glasgow. That makes it all the more important, as many others have said, that we honour the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to support developing nations. I would like to hear the Minister’s assessment of how that target will be reached in the coming weeks, and what more, if anything, the UK needs to contribute to ensure it is reached. Specifically—this is the one question I will ask the Minister, so I would really like an answer today, or subsequently in writing from a colleague if appropriate—can she confirm that a plan for meeting that $100 billion commitment will be brought forward by the UN General Assembly in September at the very latest, as 100 developing countries, including key Commonwealth allies, called for last week? Can she also assure the House that the UK will use its influence at the World Bank to ensure that it has a climate finance plan in place by the International Monetary Fund meeting scheduled for October?

  In addition to that $100 billion, as others have said, we also need to make tangible progress over the next few months on the share of climate finance flowing towards adaptation; on financing for loss and damage; on arrangements for post-2025 climate finance; and on the wider issues, which are really important in their own right, of vaccines and the debt burden that developing countries are facing as a result of the pandemic. There are a range of other issues on which greater progress is required, whether that is the rules for article 6 and transparency that the hon. Member for Bath mentioned; financial flows for the phasing out of coal; or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) brought home powerfully in her contribution, nature and biodiversity. However, time prevents me from exploring any of them in this debate.

  What is important for the purposes of today, as we approach the 100-day marker, is that the House realises that the window for securing the outcomes necessary to make COP26 a success is closing rapidly, and that the outcome of the conference hangs in the balance as a result. There is a pressing need to accelerate progress markedly in a range of areas where the UK, as COP president, can make a real difference, but for that to happen, this critical summit has to be made a whole-of-Government priority, with the sustained engagement and focus from the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary that that implies. It is an open secret that we are not seeing that engagement or focus at the moment. Until we do, we run the very real risk of failure in Glasgow in November.

  Full debate: COP26 Conference Priorities

  Do the Government agree that the $100 billion commitment needs to be met in full by the UN General Assembly in September, and that the $17 billion shortfall needs to be made up and cannot wait any longer if COP26 is going to be a success?

  Full debate: COP26 Conference Priorities

• 21 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @ClimateEnvoy: 2021 - a decisive year to take action on the climate crisis. We must not wait to start making the critical decisions that… [Source]

• 20 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @meganrowling: US climate envoy John Kerry says has discussed the annual $100 billion #climatefinance goal with Biden, who is committed… [Source]

• 17 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @mtpennycook: The whole of government needs to be ruthlessly focused on COP26 if we’re to keep alive the hope of limiting global heating… [Source]

• 16 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @MarkLGoldberg: This is probably the single most important determinant of whether or not COP26 in Glasgow will be a success. https://t.… [Source]

• 14 Jul 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Keeping the 1.5°C limit alive is now, quite rightly, one of the Government’s stated aims of COP26. Although we do not doubt the COP President’s personal commitment to delivering on that objective, the Government as a whole are patently still not doing enough. If we are to markedly increase the global ambition for 2030 targets, forge a coalition with vulnerable nations to hold the major emitters to account, and mobilise the climate finance that is essential to unlocking any agreement, we need sustained engagement and focus from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, and we need it now. With just over 100 days until this critical summit, does the COP26 President recognise that if senior members of the Government do not raise their game quickly, there is a real risk of failure in Glasgow in November?

  Full debate: Limiting Global Temperature Rise

• 14 Jul 2021: Tweet

  The whole of government needs to be ruthlessly focused on COP26 if we’re to keep alive the hope of limiting global heating to 1.5C. With just over 100 days remaining, senior ministers need to raise their game quickly or risk failure at Glasgow in November. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1415281714558128128/video/1 [Source]

• 13 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @LeoHickman: The very same govt which is hosting COP26, where climate finance will be the deal-breaker for success/failure... [Source]

• 07 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @jossgarman: OBR central scenario says costs of net zero are negative until early 2030s. Says overall cost of transition to Net Zero c… [Source]

• 6 Jul 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  The 2021 progress report published by the Climate Change Committee last month stated:

  Despite the committee’s characteristic politeness, that is a damning critique from the Government’s own climate advisers. I take it from the Minister’s previous answer that the House has this morning been given a cast-iron guarantee that a net zero strategy will be published well in advance of COP26; will she confirm that that is the case? Does she recognise that the credibility of such a strategy is predicated on a substantive Treasury net zero review that sets out precisely how the benefits and burdens of the transition will be shared fairly?

  Full debate: Net Zero Strategy: Publication

• 06 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: Notably, the @OBR_UK highlights the costs of **not** acting on climate change as being "much larger" than the cost of reach… [Source]

• 06 Jul 2021: Tweet

  The Government needs to publish a comprehensive net zero strategy well in advance of COP26 and that strategy must include a Treasury-endorsed plan for how decarbonisation will be funded fairly. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1412392699236343812/video/1 [Source]

• 06 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Listening to Ministers trying to explain why @theCCCuk says the government are marked 'somewhere below' 4 out of 10 for cl… [Source]

• 04 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: No one is going to be told to "rip out" their gas boiler The UK contributed 5% of historical CO2, one of largest shares pe… [Source]

• 01 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @BelindaSchaepe: "Success at COP26 is about keeping the 1.5C target within reach. To achieve this, China would need to peak much earlier… [Source]

• 01 Jul 2021: Tweet

  RT @GeorgeMonbiot: This is what @bbcbitesize is teaching our children about climate breakdown. I'm sorry, but it's an absolute disgrace. Yo… [Source]

• 24 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @James_BG: I know this is an old point, but @theCCCuk today delivered one of the most important documents of the year. It deals with iss… [Source]

• 24 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: The chasm between government climate rhetoric and the greenwashing reality has been laid bare. The message from @theCCCuk… [Source]

• 24 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @KayBurley: Invest against climate change now, or our kids will face massive costs down the road, says @Ed_Miliband. The Shadow Busines… [Source]

• 23 Jun 2021: Tweet

  “If we actually want to stop climate change, then this must be the year in which we get serious about doing so" - Boris Johnson, Leaders Summit on Climate, 22 April 2021 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-prepares-to-approve-oilfield-despite-cop26-climate-conference-0wlxjm7tv?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1624429055 [Source]

• 23 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @timbolord: Important to note that this hasn’t been approved – but in COP26 year, speculation that it might be is pretty unhelpful, and… [Source]

• 22 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: There is no time to waste when it comes to tackling #climatebreakdown. Today – I called on Rishi Sunak to hardwire net… [Source]

• 21 Jun 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  As the Minister made clear, as this is the first carbon budget to be set since the House legislated for a net zero target in 2019, the sixth carbon budget marks a critical point in our country’s contribution to delivering on the ambition of the Paris agreement and thus keeping alive the hope of limiting global heating to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels.

  Labour very much welcomes the Government’s decision to accept the Climate Change Committee’s advice that the budget level be set at 965 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent for the 2033-37 period. I also put on the record the Opposition’s thanks to the CCC for the comprehensive nature of the advice it produced in December, as well as the road map that it set out alongside that advice for achieving a fully decarbonised economy by mid-century.

  “there is no alternative to the legal requirement in the Climate Change Act to set a sixth carbon budget level with a view to reducing UK emissions to net zero by 2050”.

  The problem is that, as a country, we will achieve net zero by mid-century and realise its promised benefits only if the carbon budget and its two predecessors are met. However, as things stand and as the Minister knows full well, the Government are still off-track not only on the net zero target with which the order aligns the carbon budget framework, but on the less ambitious target that preceded it.

  So, for all those commitments that are now aligned with the net zero target—from the pledge to bring forward 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030 to phasing out petrol and diesel cars and vans by the same date—there are scores of other areas, from low-carbon heat networks and heat pumps to peatlands, where ambitions have either not been set or have been set but fall far short of what is required.

  Therefore, a huge amount rests on the comprehensive net zero strategy that the Minister mentioned and that we have been promised will be published prior to COP26 in November. That strategy needs to set a coherent vision, filling in the gaps and clarifying the ambiguities that remain. However, if we are to have an effective policy framework to ensure that this carbon budget is met, we also need the full range of detailed blueprints that have been promised by the Government, but not yet delivered.

  Where is the heat and buildings strategy, which was promised for spring 2020 and has been repeatedly delayed? Where is the net zero aviation strategy, which was promised for early 2020 and of which there is no sign? Where is the hydrogen strategy that the December 2020 10-point package stated would be published in early 2021? Where is the transport decarbonisation plan, which was announced in 2020 and then delayed until spring 2021? It is still nowhere to be seen.

  Crucially, where is the final Treasury net zero review? In an answer to a written question that I tabled on 18 May, the Exchequer Secretary stated that it would be published “this spring”. By my calculation, spring ends today, and there is still no sign of it. As the Minister knows, we need that review, not least because calling any net zero strategy that had not fully incorporated the conclusions of such a review “comprehensive” would be a misnomer.

  The Minister knows that net zero requires a whole-of-Government approach. As it has real implications for giving effect to the order we are about to pass, I would be grateful if she gave the Committee some sense of why certain Departments seemingly get away with lagging so far behind others. Why do the Cabinet Committees on climate action strategy and climate action implementation not appear to be doing what is required in leadership and co-ordination to drive progress across the board?

  Finally, even if the Government close what remains of the ambition gap and introduce detailed strategies in each of the remaining areas, meeting the carbon budget and achieving net zero will still require a step change in delivery. As things stand, only a fraction of the emissions savings required to meet the sixth carbon budget are on track to be implemented in full. Given that the Government are not doing what is necessary to ensure that the change takes place at the pace required, any further fiscal opportunities to lock in a genuine green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis cannot be squandered. From road building to planning, there needs to be a renewed focus on ensuring that all Government policy is compatible with the net zero target, but greater priority must also be accorded to ensuring that well-designed schemes, particularly those that relate to the decarbonisation of challenging sectors such as buildings, are up and running by the end of this Parliament.

  The recent green homes grant fiasco is a case in point. It is not good enough simply to scrap the scheme for homeowners and take forward the local authority delivery element. Given the scale of the challenge presented by energy efficiency in the residential sector, Ministers need to introduce a replacement scheme as a matter of urgency—one that draws on the lessons of what has gone before. I ask the Minister to provide some assurance not only that work is being undertaken to that end, but that there is an impetus within the Government more generally to ensure that the gap between delivery and stated ambition is closed at the pace required to comply with the order and get us on track for net zero.

  Full debate: Draft Carbon Budget Order 2021

• 16 Jun 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  At the G7, the Prime Minister and other leaders reasserted their intention to honour the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to support developing nations, but sufficient concrete financial commitments to make up the shortfall did not materialise. Does he agree that the commitment must be met by the UN General Assembly in September at the very latest, if we are not to risk failure at COP26 in November?

  Full debate: G7 and NATO Summits

• 16 Jun 2021: Tweet

  Post-G7 there remains a shortfall of around $17bn in the $100bn annual climate finance commitment made to developing nations in 2009 and reaffirmed in the #ParisAgreement. Over the coming months wealthy nations must finally honour it in full or risk failure at COP26 in November. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1405179800319373318/video/1 [Source]

• 16 Jun 2021: Tweet

  This report makes for sobering reading and is about as critical as @theCCCUK get. In the face of rising risk, adaptation remains “under-resourced, underfunded & often ignored”. The climate crisis has already arrived. Time for the Government to start taking adaptation seriously. https://twitter.com/theCCCuk/status/1404937261720870922 [Source]

• 14 Jun 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  As the Minister said in her remarks, when placing a limit on the quantity of international credits that can be used to meet any given carbon budget, the Government, under section 9 of the 2008 Act, must take into account advice from the Climate Change Committee and must also consult the devolved Administrations. The CCC’s advice on this matter could not have been clearer. It recommended that international emissions credits should not be allowed to contribute to meeting the fourth carbon budget—that is, that a limit of zero should be set instead of the 55 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent provided for by this instrument. In their response to the consultation, the Scottish Government made it clear that they would support the adoption of a zero limit. Similarly, the Welsh Government stated that they would support a zero limit in principle. The UK Government have determined that they will ignore those views and dismiss the very clear recommendation of the CCC. In doing so, the Government essentially make two arguments in support of setting a positive limit.

  The secondary argument is that the purchase of international credits could also enable the UK to support climate mitigation action in developing countries via the carbon budgets framework, and contribute to the development of a global carbon market, thereby reducing the cost of global climate action over the long term.

  The first argument is, on the face of it, the stronger one. After all, it is surely only sensible, as the Minister has said, for any Government to plan for contingencies and to build in some flexibility to mitigate unforeseen circumstances. The problem with that argument is that the benefit of building in wiggle room of a mere 2.8% to account for potential changes in the methodology underpinning the emissions inventory, or the risk of high emissions relative to current projections, is, we believe, outweighed by the damage that it causes. I do not dismiss it entirely, but I am not primarily referring here to the negative impact of setting a positive limit on investor confidence, which I believe the Government are right to argue is likely to be relatively small. I am thinking more of the harm that setting a positive limit is likely to cause in terms of the signal it sends about the Government’s perception of the degree of flexibility involved in the carbon budget framework, their commitment to achieve the net zero target through domestic action and—as a country that, as the Minister rightly said, has a relatively strong record of domestic emissions reductions—the example it conveys to other countries about the approach they can follow when it comes to their own pathways.

  The Minister knows full well that the 2030 NDC that the UK formally submitted at the UNFCCC in December last year under the Paris agreement, and the sixth carbon budget announced in April, will require a far more ambitious pace and scale of emissions reductions over the coming years. If, as a country, we finally begin to do what is necessary to put ourselves decisively on track to achieve net zero, there should be no question that the fourth carbon budget, which—according to the CCC—remains at the right level even accounting for inventory changes, will be met without the use of international credits. Taken together with the fact that the Government’s central projections make it clear that they are unlikely to use the credits provided for by this order, and the likelihood that the cost of those credits will rise significantly in the years ahead, the Opposition believe that the case made by the Government for a positive limit does not outweigh the damage it might cause and is not strong enough to justify ignoring the CCC’s advice.

  The Government should have the confidence to set a zero limit and thereby clearly indicate that they will do whatever it takes to comfortably meet, and hopefully outperform—given the more stringent targets that are coming forward—the fourth carbon budget through domestic action alone. For that reason, we intend to divide the Committee this afternoon. While I can see from the numbers here that the order will be approved, I hope the Minister will take on board our very real concerns about the detrimental impacts of legislating for the use of international credits and recommit the Government to doing whatever is necessary to achieve net zero over the coming years through planned government policy.

  Full debate: Draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2021

• 13 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @KarlMathiesen: G7 climate finance update: Germany shifts from €4bn to €6bn. Canada doubles to around $1bn per year. Gap to promise… [Source]

• 13 Jun 2021: Tweet

  Honouring the promised $100bn in climate finance annually to support developing nations is an issue of trust and pivotal to the success of COP26 for that reason. Reasserting the pledge is not enough, G7 leaders must detail how the shortfall will be made up before the summit ends. [Source]

• 11 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @guardianeco: António Guterres on climate crisis: ‘We are coming to a point of no return’ https://t.co/QSKiat2AOf [Source]

• 9 Jun 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  As the President of COP26 knows, the International Energy Agency latest world energy outlook makes it clear that a net zero pathway for global energy requires that there be no new fossil fuel supply beyond projects already committed to as of this year. That means not just coal, but oil and gas. The report reinforces the obvious need to secure agreement on a global framework for a managed and fair phase-out of fossil fuels. Will the President therefore tell the House whether he accepts the IEA’s conclusion and, if so, whether ending all new fossil fuel supply from next year will be incorporated into the objectives of the UK’s presidency of COP26?

  Full debate: Policy Objectives

• 09 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: To make COP26 a success we have a responsibility as hosts to build trust with developing countries. The government’s deci… [Source]

• 09 Jun 2021: Tweet

  There is no response to the climate crisis that does not ultimately confront the problem of fossil fuel supply head on. We urgently need international agreement on a managed and fair phase-out of fossil fuels across the globe. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1402601805427744773/video/1 [Source]

• 09 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @fbirol: Our major new report reveals a critical fault line in global efforts to reach climate goals. In many emerging & developing eco… [Source]

• 07 Jun 2021: Vote

  Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill — New Clause 1 - Human Rights Abuses - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 06 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @indy_climate: Tackle ‘injustices’ alongside climate emergency or risk ‘yellow vests-style’ protests, Ed Miliband warns https://t.co/sLy… [Source]

• 02 Jun 2021: Tweet

  RT @GordonBrown: I wrote in @thetimes Red Box today about the need for the UK to keep its international promises to ensure that COP26 succe… [Source]

• 26 May 2021: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: Tackling the climate emergency and realising the enormous potential that transitioning to a green economy holds, is the d… [Source]

• 26 May 2021: Tweet

  RT @mtpennycook: Fairness and jobs are at the heart of @UKLabour's approach to decarbonisation. Delighted to be working with unions, indust… [Source]

• 26 May 2021: Tweet

  Fairness and jobs are at the heart of @UKLabour's approach to decarbonisation. Delighted to be working with unions, industry leaders and members of the climate movement to further develop our distinctive approach to the transition to a net-zero economy. https://labourlist.org/2021/05/exclusive-labour-launches-just-transition-climate-working-group/ [Source]

• 26 May 2021: Vote

  Environment Bill — New Clause 24 - Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 21 May 2021: Tweet

  Britain’s first Zero Emission Zone will be rolled out by @OxfordCity this year as part of their plan to be a zero-carbon city by 2040. A great example of the kind of bold climate action that @UKLabour in local government can deliver. Well done @CllrTomHayes and the team! https://twitter.com/TomHayesBmouth/status/1395628706316656640 [Source]

• 21 May 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Developing countries are the most threatened by climate breakdown and the least responsible. The G7 summit is a chance to… [Source]

• 18 May 2021: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: @IEA JUST LOOK AT THIS CHART The global electricity system for net-zero by 2050 is nearly 90% renewable, says the @IEA h… [Source]

• 01 May 2021: Tweet

  Today marks two years since the House of Commons formally declared an environment and climate emergency. Yet the Conservative Government has failed to respond to that declaration with the ambition and the urgency required. We need bold action to tackle the #ClimateEmergency [Source]

• 30 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @edking_I: Cutting #climate adaptation $$$ not a good look for @FCDOGovUK at any time... but especially ahead of #COP26 - massive own go… [Source]

• 28 Apr 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Yet, taken in the round, there has been a tangible lack of progress when it comes to doing what is necessary to ensure that heat network customers are adequately protected. That should be a concern to each of us, but it should particularly concern the Government, not only because of their avowed aim to keep customer bills as low as possible, but because low levels of consumer confidence in heat networks, born of consistently poor service and expensive bills, will make it that much harder for the UK to decarbonise heat and reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions.

  In the time I have today, I do not intend to delve into the enormous challenge presented by the urgent need to decarbonise heat, and what more the Government must do to meet that challenge, not least because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) will do so with his customary rigour and incisiveness when he responds from the Front Bench. I do want to make the point that we will struggle as a country to take the public with us when making the case for the benefits of large-scale heat network deployment if we continue to put off addressing the systemic problems in the sector.

  Full debate: District Heat Networks

• 22 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @LouBurrows7: Big news! South Korea ???????? just announced an end to its intl coal financing at #LeadersClimateSummit. This is a major shif… [Source]

• 22 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @SkyNews: "We must make decisions that will avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis" Joe Biden has told the virtual climate… [Source]

• 22 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @climateactiontr: #PresidentBiden's new #ParisAgreement target is the biggest US step forward on #climate in history; would close the 20… [Source]

• 22 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: Actions matter more than targets. The Conservatives cannot be trusted to tackle the climate emergency. We need a Green… [Source]

• 20 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: The Government upgrading its climate targets is welcome, but this is the minimum we should be doing, and targets are no su… [Source]

• 20 Apr 2021: Tweet

  Timely report from @GreenAllianceUK on the UK's progress towards #netzero. The Government is way off track to meet its current climate targets and it will need to go much further and faster to get back on, particularly in terms of decarbonising transport, housing and agriculture. https://twitter.com/GreenAllianceUK/status/1384402020149432320 [Source]

• 20 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @fbirol: Global CO2 emissions are set to jump by 1.5 gigatonnes in 2021 – led by a rebound in coal demand mainly from the power sector.… [Source]

• 14 Apr 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  In a letter to all UNFCCC—United Nations framework convention on climate change—parties this week, the COP President rightly argued that we must halve global emissions by 2030 if we are to keep the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5° within reach, yet he will know that recent UN analysis makes it clear that current national pledges will reduce emissions by just 1% by the end of this critical decade. We need the major emitters to do much more if we are to close the gap. That means a need for deep cuts in American emissions and for Chinese emissions to peak by 2025, but it also means a need for tangible progress on the part of India. With the Prime Minister meeting President Modi later this month, will the COP President tell the House what the UK is willing to put on the table, particularly in terms of climate finance and technological support, to help to ensure that India feels able to increase its ambition markedly ahead of the summit?

  Full debate: Tackling Climate Change: International Ambition

• 14 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @MikeBernersLee: UK just not getting it that the world expects integrity for COP 26. Christiana Figueres :“There have been recent decis… [Source]

• 14 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @timbolord: Important letter from @AlokSharma_RDG - more specificity on COP26 goals is needed and this is a step in the right direction.… [Source]

• 12 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @guardian: Boris Johnson told to get grip of UK climate strategy before Cop26 https://t.co/SqjQsRdgNQ [Source]

• 09 Apr 2021: Tweet

  RT @SStapczynski: Japan to Raise Emissions Reduction Target ???????? Japan will pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030. The cu… [Source]

• 31 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @mtpennycook: As the hosts of #COP26, the Government must provide the leadership necessary to put the world decisively on course to deli… [Source]

• 31 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @ThangamMP: People asking what's @UKLabour plan for tackling #climatechange #ClimateEmergency - see this from my colleague @mtpennycook… [Source]

• 31 Mar 2021: Tweet

  As the hosts of #COP26, the Government must provide the leadership necessary to put the world decisively on course to deliver on the ambition of the Paris Agreement and keep alive the hope of limiting global heating to 1.5°C. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/government-must-raise-its-game-or-risk-failure-at-cop26-wx627dt7z [Source]

• 29 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: We cannot let COP26 come and go as a photo op for Boris Johnson. It's the best chance we've got to deliver the change we n… [Source]

• 28 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @Luisamneubauer: If the Ever Given stuck in the Suez Canal was the climate crisis, right now, governments would be adding more sand to t… [Source]

• 18 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @mtpennycook: This headline should actually read "UK temporarily halfway to net-zero following a record-breaking fall in emissions in 20… [Source]

• 18 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: Climate twitter, I need your help. COP26 president Alok Sharma has written an article setting out the UK's priorities for… [Source]

• 18 Mar 2021: Tweet

  Fairness must be at the heart of the transition to a net zero economy and we must do much more to involve the public in an honest discussion about the inherent trade-offs involved. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/were-ready-to-become-net-zero-heroes-by-2050-but-only-if-price-is-right-ng2lttc87 [Source]

• 18 Mar 2021: Tweet

  This headline should actually read "UK temporarily halfway to net-zero following a record-breaking fall in emissions in 2020, largely due to the coronavirus pandemic". https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-halfway-to-hitting-its-carbon-neutral-target-by-2050-xzcb2wwbj?utm_source=CP+Daily&utm_campaign=44632fa7ad-CPdaily18032021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a9d8834f72-44632fa7ad-36266557®ion=global [Source]

• 17 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: Potentially huge climate news via @AkshatRathi this morning, that India is looking at a net-zero emissions target for 2050.… [Source]

• 17 Mar 2021: Tweet

  Also noteworthy that the strategy states that any coking coal mining activity “needs to be net zero compliant in the future” (p.53). Looking forward to the convoluted arguments the Northern Research Group will surely make in that regard vis-à-vis the proposed Cumbria coal mine. [Source]

• 17 Mar 2021: Tweet

  A specific further thought on steel: it’s welcome that the strategy is supportive of @theCCCuk recommendation for ore-based steelmaking to achieve net zero by 2035 but that is going to require Ministers to bring forward the £250m Clean Steel Fund scheme as a matter of urgency. [Source]

• 17 Mar 2021: Tweet

  The levels of ambition set out in the new Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy in relation to industry/the public sector are encouraging but the document is woefully light on detail (and downright opaque when it comes to decarbonising steel) and no new funding has been announced. [Source]

• 13 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @timbolord: Excellent Times piece on the Cumbria coal mine decision. Net zero will involve some tough political choices; if we're seriou… [Source]

• 10 Mar 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), as well as the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for securing the debate and for their insightful contributions. I also praise the powerful speeches made by others who participated. I will single out the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who spoke powerfully about the need for participation on equal terms by all the parties at COP26; the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore); the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell, who made an interesting point about the need for citizen engagement to realise the promise of the summit taking place in the UK; and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who—much to my delight—made the case not just for reducing demand for fossil fuels but, quite rightly, on the imperative to scale down their supply as a matter of urgency if we are to address the climate crisis.

  As the first real test of the landmark Paris agreement, the COP26 summit in Glasgow in November will be a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating. We all have a stake in ensuring that it is a success, and in that spirit I reiterate the Opposition’s desire to play a constructive role in the process and put on the record our support for whatever financial resources are required to effectively plan and deliver the conference. As the hosts of the summit, the Government are presented with not only an unrivalled opportunity to demonstrate climate leadership in the coming months, but a solemn responsibility to do all they can to maximise global ambition and to secure agreement on a road map for delivering on that ambition and the Paris agreement.

  As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee and others remarked, in its first assessment of global climate pledges ahead of COP26, published 10 days ago, the UNFCCC made it clear that the world is currently on course only for emissions reductions of 1% by the end of this critical decade, not the 45% reduction that is required to keep alive the hope of limiting heating to 1.5°C. The COP26 President knows that we would have liked the Government to be even more ambitious, but there is no question but that the UK’s NDC, now submitted, and the 2030 target of omissions reductions of least 68% are ambitious and will be extremely challenging to deliver. As the summit’s host, the UK needs to be making the case forcefully, both publicly and privately, for a far greater level of ambition from others, so that by November the world will have decisively closed the gap between our current temperature trajectory and where we need to be to realise the Paris agreement.

  I hope that the COP26 President will update the House on the efforts he is making, in particular to ensure that large emitters that have not yet done so submit ambitious NDCs in the near future, and on what the Government are doing to compel recalcitrant nations, in particular Australia, Japan, South Korea and Russia, which have merely resubmitted existing NDCs, and Brazil and Mexico, which have backtracked on their existing targets, to think again in the few months that remain until the summit.

  The second issue is climate justice. As much as it increasingly defines our approach to climate here at home, COP26 is not simply about the race to net zero among advanced economies; it is also about delivering on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and making tangible progress on adaptation, loss and damage, and financial assistance.

  As I know the COP26 President is aware, this agenda is a defining one for many African states, the most vulnerable developing countries and small island states. Those nations were essential to the international consensus on which the success at Paris was built, and their active consent is imperative for a successful outcome in Glasgow.

  With only limited progress made in this area last year, with trust in short supply and with concerns heightened by decisions such as the cut to the UK’s overseas aid budget, this must be a diplomatic priority over the next eight months. Again, perhaps in his closing remarks the COP26 President could tell the House what more the Government intend to do in that period to demonstrate solidarity and support for those on the frontline of the climate crisis, particularly in bringing forward finance on loss and damage and in meeting. and then surpassing, the US$100 billion a year.

  According to the OECD, less than $80 billion has been pledged so far, with only $12 billion taking the form of grants rather than loans. The UK’s record in that regard is a good one, but perhaps the COP26 President could remark on whether he sees loans as a legitimate means to meet the target and whether he thinks there is a need to rebalance loans towards grants to make up the $100 billion.

  My third point is about domestic policy. There is an obligation on the House to engage properly with the climate diplomacy required to deliver a successful COP26. At the same time, as hosts, we cannot overlook the impact of domestic decisions on the outcome of the conference. As Opposition Members have argued time and again, the UK will not be able to play its full part in building and sustaining the requisite momentum ahead of COP26 if we are not seen to lead by example. Yet, whether it is acquiescing to the opening of a new deep coalmine in Cumbria—

  Full debate: COP26

  The hon. Gentleman is correct that we will need coking coal for UK steel for some years to come, but I am sure he will know that UK steel must go net zero by 2035 and less than 15% of the coking coal produced, if that, will be used for UK steel. What he misses is that the cumulative emissions from the mine will have a material impact on UK emissions, on our net zero target and on our credibility and reputation ahead of this crucial conference. I do not think the business case, let alone the emissions reduction case, stacks up.

  Our credibility as COP26 hosts requires the Government not only to bring forward, before 1 November, a comprehensive plan for achieving net zero but to take concrete steps now to get on track for that legally binding target, to ensure that decarbonisation and a green recovery are a top priority as we ease coronavirus restrictions and rebuild our economy, and to cease taking decisions such as the one cited by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) that expose our country to charges of hypocrisy on the international stage ahead of this critical summit.

  In responding to this very welcome debate, I hope the COP26 President will assure hon. and right hon. Members that he understands the very real impact of domestic policy choices on the summit and that he is personally doing all he can to ensure the Government take the steps necessary to put their house in order in the months that remain.

  COP26 is the first of only two ratchet points in this crucial decade. The decisions that are made in the lead-up to it and hopefully at it, in terms of extra ambition, will set the trajectory for climate action up to 2030.

  Full debate: COP26

• 08 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @PEspinosaC: Women & girls around the ???? are leading climate action. In the fight against the #ClimateCrisis, our voices are indispensabl… [Source]

• 05 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @guardian: New infrastructure bank won't help UK reach net zero, says Labour https://t.co/eCMGTRESnr [Source]

• 04 Mar 2021: Tweet

  After all, it’s not as if Parliament formally declared a climate emergency... ????????‍♂️ https://t.co/vL5OjBDEJD [Source]

• 03 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @timbolord: So having read the small print, the main thing to say on net zero and #Budget is that… there’s not much to say. (1/) [Source]

• 03 Mar 2021: Tweet

  A green veneer to #Budget21 as expected but no real evidence that decarbonisation is central to the Government’s economic policy. #Netzero isn’t an optimal extra Chancellor - it's an essential response to the #ClimateCrisis. Yet another lost opportunity for bold #ClimateAction. [Source]

• 03 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @PJTheEconomist: Another freeze in fuel duty. Once again rhetoric on environment and climate change not matched by reality of continuall… [Source]

• 02 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @fbirol: BIG NEWS: Despite falling 6% in 2020 as a whole, global energy-related CO2 emissions rebounded over the course of the year from… [Source]

• 01 Mar 2021: Tweet

  Impressed by @avivaplc's #netzero 2040 plan. Genuine ambition covering scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions as well as solid interim commitments. An example of real leadership on climate. Others should take note - recovery can't just mean business as usual. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/01/aviva-sets-target-net-zero-carbon-footprint-2040 [Source]

• 26 Feb 2021: Tweet

  The world will only achieve net zero by decisively shifting away from fossil fuels. Having led the debate on climate risk, Mark Carney’s comments threaten to legitimise the very greenwashing he has so eloquently spoken out against in the past. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cop26-mark-carney-accused-of-greenwashing-ahead-of-uk-climate-summit-qh5bm8qk2 [Source]

• 26 Feb 2021: Tweet

  Whether it is by remaining seriously off track to meet its existing climate targets, standing by while a new coal mine opens in Cumbria, or damaging our standing with those on the frontline of the climate crisis by cutting overseas aid - it's simply not good enough. [Source]

• 26 Feb 2021: Tweet

  COP26 is the last best chance to keep alive the hope of the Paris Agreement that warming might be limited to 1.5°C. As its hosts, the UK has a unique responsibility to do whatever it takes to maximise global ambition and secure agreement on a roadmap for delivering that ambition. [Source]

• 26 Feb 2021: Tweet

  RT @jossgarman: Even as he advises no10 & the UN on COP26, Mark Carney’s company is investing in coal, oil and gas around the world but he… [Source]

• 24 Feb 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Next week, the Government will co-host a summit of the Powering Past Coal Alliance to boost international co-operation on the phasing out of coal, yet at the same time, Ministers are refusing to intervene here at home to prevent the opening of a new deep coal mine in Cumbria. The president knows full well that the proposed mine is not purely a local matter, that it will not help to secure the future of UK steel and that it will not provide the long-term secure jobs that Cumbrians need. However, it will increase emissions, undermine progress to our net zero target and damage our credibility as COP26 host. My question to him, therefore, is a simple one: in this critical year, why on earth are he and his Cabinet colleagues content to see this mine approved?

  Full debate: Post Covid-19 Economic Recovery: Climate Action

• 24 Feb 2021: Tweet

  As @UKLabour have consistently argued: the UK will have zero credibility as a climate leader if we do not lead by example. The Government will soon have another chance to intervene and call in the flawed proposal for a new coal mine in Cumbria. As COP26 host, it must take it. https://x.com/mtpennycook/status/1364582806215667714/video/1 [Source]

• 24 Feb 2021: Tweet

  Preparing for the first standalone #COP26 question session at 11.30am. As a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating, good to see the summit getting the parliamentary time and attention it deserves. [Source]

• 19 Feb 2021: Tweet

  In order to achieve #NetZero, @theCCCuk recommends that UK steelmaking be “near-zero emissions by 2035”. That is likely to require a rapid shift toward a combination of electric steel recycling and hydrogen-based reduction for primary steel. This will require less coking coal. [Source]

• 13 Jan 2021: Vote

  Financial Services Bill — Schedule 2 - Prudential regulation of FCA investment firms - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 15 Dec 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  According to Climate Action Tracker, the national net zero pledges that have been put forward today could, if achieved across the board, limit global heating to around 2.1°, but in terms of actual policies, the world remains on course for catastrophic warming of over 3°. Given the gulf between what Governments, including this Government, have promised on climate action and what they are on course to achieve, does the Secretary of State agree that it is incumbent on the UK as COP26 host to demonstrate to the world that it actually has a plan to deliver net zero? If he does agree, will he assure the House that the Government will publish a comprehensive and fully costed net zero strategy well in advance of November next year?

  Full debate: Climate Action

• 7 Dec 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  As I have said to the Minister on previous occasions, we cannot run the risk of a dysfunctional carbon pricing system in the year we host the critical COP26 UN climate summit. As the Committee will know, only 24 days—eight sitting days—of this parliamentary term now remain until the transition period ends, and with it the UK’s participation in the EU ETS. Yet the Government have still not announced whether a stand-alone UK ETS or a carbon emissions tax will operate from 1 January should a linking agreement with the EU ETS not be negotiated and put in place by that date. Surely, the Minister cannot believe it is fair that the emitters in question still have no idea what arrangements they will be operating under in just three and a half weeks’ time. My understanding is that a decision has been on the Prime Minister’s desk since late last month. If that is the case, what on earth is stopping the Government making clear to those affected what fall-back carbon pricing arrangement will operate in the UK from 1 January should the linked UK-EU scheme not materialise from the negotiations in the coming days and weeks?

  The second issue I want to raise concerns the long- term arrangements for addressing carbon leakage and ensuring that our energy-intensive industries remain competitive as we accelerate the pace of emissions reduction. We accept that compensation of the kind we are authorising today is necessary, but to avoid the cost of such compensation spiralling over the long term, as the price of carbon is increased, there must be sufficient long-term support to green the industries in question. After all, as the Minister will know, many if not all of the energy-intensive industries covered by the motion will not only benefit from compensation for the indirect emissions cost of carbon pricing, but will continue to benefit from reduced costs in respect of climate levies. They are, in short, in a relatively privileged position relative to other less energy-intensive industries. Therefore, as we accelerate efforts to achieve net zero, there will have to be greater use of conditionality to ensure that the financial support provided to compensate these industries is balanced by measures to ensure that their carbon intensity is steadily reduced.

  I note that a review and a consultation in early 2021 in relation to the compensation scheme have been mentioned, and the Minister touched on that in her remarks, but I would be grateful if she could reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the limits of the compensation mechanism in question over the long term as the price of carbon rises, and that they accept that more will need to be done beyond the schemes she touched on to accelerate the pace of decarbonisation in these industries, not least to manage the costs of the current scheme going forward.

  Full debate: Financial Assistance to Industry

• 1 Dec 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve a net zero carbon economy.

  Full debate: Net Zero Carbon Economy

  A robust carbon price is essential to achieving a net zero carbon economy, yet despite the transition period ending in just 30 days’ time, companies still have no precise idea what will replace the EU emissions trading system, which the UK will cease to participate in at that point. The House has already passed the legislation required to establish a stand-alone UK ETS, but there is no sign of the order necessary to fully implement a UK-wide carbon tax. With just 12 sitting days remaining, can the Minister confirm that the Government have determined that a stand-alone UK ETS is the fall-back option for 1 January and that the Treasury has abandoned a carbon emissions tax?

  Full debate: Net Zero Carbon Economy

• 26 Nov 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and others made clear, we are in the midst of a climate and environment emergency. With the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere continuing to rise unabated, the issue is not whether we can stop climate change—the climate crisis is, after all, already upon us—but whether we are willing to do what is necessary to transition to a net zero world in the coming decades and thereby arrest runaway global heating.

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made clear, there is no solution to the climate crisis that does not confront the issue of carbon consumption, but even if viewed through the lens of production emissions, the UK is still not doing enough. Not only are we not on track for the net zero target that Parliament legislated for just over a year ago; we are not even on track for the less stringent one that preceded it. When it comes to the UK’s record on territorial emissions, there is much to be proud of, but progress to date is largely the result of our having picked the low-hanging fruit, particularly in relation to the power sector. The decarbonisation involved—this is the key point—has had only a very limited impact on people. If we are going to get on track for net zero, we will have to make rapid progress in sectors such as transport and housing that are far more difficult to decarbonise and where the impact on people will be much more acute.

  I do not have time to do justice to the many recommendations the report, and in any case, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West and others have already done so. I want to briefly step back and look at two of the fundamental principles that the overwhelming majority of Climate Assembly members felt should underpin the transition to net zero and that have been prominent themes in today’s debate: the need for strong leadership from Government and the need for fairness.

  We have seen plenty of announcements from the Government in recent months, some more significant than others, and a 10-point package—I will not call it a plan, because there is still no sign of a comprehensive strategy for achieving net zero and no serious attempt to close the net zero investment gap that exists. We have seen policy making that is at times so wildly inconsistent with that target that the Chancellor sees no issue whatsoever with delivering a spending review in which, in one breath, he talks about investment in a greener future and, in the next, he celebrates Britain’s biggest ever investment in new roads. The Government must do better.

  The gilets jaunes movement in France is only the most notable example of how badly designed green policy and a failure to embed fairness of process and outcome in the transition can erode the public support necessary for it, so we need to hear more from the Government about how fairness can be embedded in the net zero process, and we need action now to ensure that the benefits of the green transition are realised here at home. I have to say that that is something the Government, along with the SNP Scottish Government, have demonstrably failed to do in letting the BiFab engineering yards in Scotland go to the wall, putting at risk the UK’s supply chain for the deployment of offshore wind.

  In conclusion, we very much welcome the Climate Assembly’s final report. While the deliberative process, such as the one used for it, is not a substitute for representative democracy, we believe that it can improve the way it works. In the Minister’s response, as well as addressing the various points made today by hon. Members, I very much hope that he will indicate that the Government also recognise the importance of actively involving the public in shaping the pathway to net zero, and that he will give the House a sense of what consideration, if any, his Department is giving to building deliberative processes into any forthcoming net zero strategy.

  Full debate: Climate Change Assembly UK: The Path to Net Zero

• 17 Nov 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. We always state this as a courtesy when opening our remarks in this place, but I am genuinely grateful that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) secured this debate, because the subject deserves far more attention in this House than it has received to date. When we talk about decarbonisation of the kind required by the net zero target, the focus is invariably on either big market trends or the action that the Government must take to drive emissions reductions across the largest emitting sectors of the economy. Although it is recognised that SMEs will be impacted by both, the assumption is always that they will simply adapt to any change made. To some extent, that will no doubt be the case, but, given that SMEs are the backbone of our economy, they need to be much more than an afterthought in our thinking about net zero, and much more thinking will need to be done about what targeted support they will need to ensure that the transition to net zero is as orderly as possible. The hon. Gentleman made very good points about the risks entailed when that does not take place and the need to learn lessons from history.

  I intend to touch on three specific areas where there is clearly a need to do more to support SMEs in transitioning towards a local carbon economy. Before I do, I want to make two general points about the Government’s approach to climate action that have implications for them. The first is the need for a clear and credible net zero strategy. Setting a net zero target was an essential first step, but hitting that target requires a plan for its delivery. Despite having legislated for it more than a year ago, the Government have still not brought forward such a strategy. Indeed, core building blocks of it, from the national infrastructure strategy to the energy White Paper, have been repeatedly delayed. Although there will need to be a sector-specific component for SMEs in it, the most important thing is that the Government bring forward that comprehensive strategy as a matter of urgency to provide clarity and certainty for SMEs and other sized businesses, and a framework within which they can make investment decisions. The test of the announcement expected from the Prime Minister tomorrow will be whether it moves us forward towards that comprehensive strategy.

  The second general point is that there is a real need for the Government to prioritise decarbonisation in any coronavirus stimulus package, and in particular a need to bring forward significant investment in low-carbon infrastructure. It is no good providing targeted net zero support for SMEs if the systems that they are embedded in and the infrastructure that they rely on are not transformed.

  On the targeted support that SMEs require to make the transition in an orderly fashion, there are three areas, as I said earlier, that require more focus. First, SMEs clearly need more information and guidance on how to progress towards net zero. That not only means better access to tailored business, financial and legal advice; we need to do more to ensure that SMEs are persuaded of the commercial importance of planning for the transition to net zero early and the detrimental implications of not doing so.

  The Government should look at what more they could do to support innovation in relation to SME business models and manufacturing processes. There are good examples of where this is happening in other countries across the world. The Dutch green new deal, for example, provides Government-backed institutions to offer free technical advice to help businesses in Holland become more efficient. More could be done to augment and enhance the role of local government and local enterprise partnerships in engaging SMEs on the issue of net zero and helping them understand the business and supply chain opportunities that exist as part of it.

  To date, while organisations such as the Carbon Trust and the Federation of Small Businesses have stepped in to provide SMEs with support along these lines, the Government themselves have done very little. Will the Minister outline in his response what plans, if any, the Government have to help inform and advise SMEs about how best to decarbonise their businesses? Secondly, as many hon. Members have said, SMEs undoubtedly need more help to access financing. Many have spoken about the pressure that SMEs are under as a result of the pandemic; the fact that they are struggling with high levels of debts and substantial losses of revenue. Many have also spoken about the financing gap that exists, not least the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) in his succinct and well-argued speech.

  Lastly, SMEs need support with skills for their workforce. The Confederation of British Industry has estimated that nine out of 10 employees will need to reskill by 2030. That will require a national low-carbon skills strategy that embeds sustainability and net zero across the whole education system. We called for the Government to bring forward a national retraining strategy to deal with the immediate jobs crisis, while meeting the longer-term needs of a low-carbon economy. Much more could be done in this respect. Will the Minister explain what thinking the Government have done, if any, on a net zero skills strategy that will provide SMEs with a workforce that is capable of successfully transitioning?

  Full debate: SMEs and the Net Zero Target

• 16 Nov 2020: Vote

  Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] — Clause 124 - Climate change risk - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 10 Nov 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  If we are to sustain public support for the goal of net zero, it is essential that we maximise the benefits of the green transition here at home, but there are far too many examples where the promise of that green transition risks not being realised. One such case is the plight of the BiFab engineering yards in Fife and Lewis, which represents a clear failure to utilise industrial strategy to ensure that British firms win work and sustain decent jobs from the billions of pounds being invested in offshore wind installations just a few miles off the Scottish coast. Citing state aid rules, the SNP Scottish Government appear content to sit back and let the steel jackets in question be manufactured overseas. Can the Minister give a commitment today that the UK Government will step in and safeguard the future of mounting fabrication in the UK and these vital 450 Scottish jobs?

  Full debate: Net Zero Emissions Target

• 12 Oct 2020: Vote

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

• 29 Sep 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  If we want business to play its full part in reducing emissions and to finance the innovation and infrastructure that are critical to the transition to a low-carbon economy, the Government need to address the very real barriers to private investment. One obvious way to do so is through a national investment bank with a clear mandate to channel both public and private capital towards projects that aid a green recovery and help the country to achieve its net zero target. Does the Minister’s Department as a whole support the establishment of such a bank, and if so, will he update the House on what progress has been made in convincing his colleagues in the Treasury to get behind the proposal?

  Full debate: Reducing Business Emissions

• 29 Sep 2020: Vote

  United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — New Clause 6 - Economic development: climate and nature emergency impact statement - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 8 Sep 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  We know that carbon pricing alone will not deliver sufficient decarbonisation to achieve the net zero emissions target that we legislated for just over a year ago, but if we are to deliver significant reductions it is essential that the UK has a robust carbon price, however that is achieved, at the point that our participation in the EU ETS ceases at the end of the transition period on 31 December. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the Opposition’s clear preference is for a UK ETS that is linked to the EU ETS. That latter option would retain for the country the key benefits that flowed from participation in the latter, with its larger pool of participants, including more opportunities for emissions reduction, greater cost-efficiencies, increased liquidity and a lower risk of market abuse.

  In contrast, a carbon emissions tax provides certainty of price, but may be less cost-effective for business, more open to political interventions that risk undermining price stability and, because there is obviously no cap on total emissions, would require institutional safeguards to ensure that prices remain consistent with the UK’s net zero target. Some of those problems may be overcome by good policy design, but the workings of either scheme are not the focus of this morning’s discussion.

  Secondly, we of course agree with the Government that the cap should be tightened in line with a trajectory consistent with a net zero target and the Committee on Climate Change’s advice on the sixth carbon budget. We also appreciate that the market needs appropriate forewarning and that industry should have enough notice to prepare for that. However, given how important ambitious climate action is in this decade, as the Minister knows, why will it take until at least January 2023, and potentially until 2024, for that alignment to take place?

  The Opposition support the establishment of a UK-wide emissions scheme as a necessary contingency, but I cannot stress enough to the Minister that, as he knows, we cannot have a dysfunctional carbon pricing system in place in the year we are to host COP26. The challenge of designing a watertight stand-alone UK ETS should be a spur to the Government’s efforts to negotiate a link-in agreement with the EU system as soon as possible.

  Full debate: Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020

• 7 Jul 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  A number of other Members mentioned the environment and climate emergency. Given the primacy of the climate threat over the long term and BEIS’s lead role in ensuring that our country plays its part in tackling it, I want to use the time that I have to focus on the Department’s record in driving progress towards the net zero target for which we legislated just over a year ago.

  Although 2050 is too late, we can continue to take pride in the fact that we were the first major economy to adopt a legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero. But setting a target is one thing; hitting it is quite another. As things stand, not only are the Government failing to do anything like enough to meet our legally binding 2050 target, but they are not even on track to meet the less ambitious target that preceded it. I am afraid Ministers give every impression of being entirely relaxed about that fact. How else do we explain that over the past 12 months, while basking in the virtuous afterglow of legislating for net zero, the Government have done precious little to set us on the road to carbon neutrality?

  The Committee on Climate Change put it in characteristically diplomatic terms when it stated in a recent annual progress report that last year

  The human, economic and social cost of the coronavirus crisis has been severe, but as we turn our attention to rebuilding, the Government have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to accelerate the decarbonisation of our economy and make up lost ground, and it is imperative that they seize it. There have been some positive signs in recent weeks that suggest that the Government may recognise the force of this argument. Take the package on energy efficiency measures that was trailed yesterday. We believe that the amount allocated to social housing is woefully inadequate, we take issue with the fact that the private rented sector has been almost entirely overlooked, and we have concerns about whether it will be possible to deliver in the seven-month window provided, but the investment is welcome. However, it has to be the first step, rather than the last word, when it comes to energy efficiency; the start of a long-term, year-on-year programme of support rather than merely a one-off annual boost. The same principle must apply in other areas.

  All of which is to say that when it comes to judging the impact of tomorrow’s statement and the autumn spending review on our decarbonisation efforts, what matters is not only the scale and nature of the stimulus, but whether the measures to be announced form part of a co-ordinated long-term approach and are interwoven with the policy change required to drive emissions reductions through the remainder of this crucial decade.

  If we are to get on track for net zero, the impetus ultimately has to come from the centre, but for obvious reasons BEIS has a crucial role to play in supporting the centre to set that strategic direction on decarbonisation and direct its spending appropriately to that end. Yet in several crucial areas the Department is still failing to provide the clear, stable and well-designed policy framework that businesses and investors require.

  Secondly, when it comes to the decarbonisation of heat, the estimates merely appear to contain a broadly static commitment to expenditure on the renewable heat incentive. Leaving aside whether funds allocated to the RHI will be rolled over to underpin other proposed low-carbon heat schemes, does the Minister agree that the total resources currently allocated by the Department to heat are nowhere near enough to respond to the challenge presented by this most difficult of sectors?

  Full debate: Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Departmental Spending

• 25 Jun 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  That brings me to my final point—I will be brief in making it, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we look to ensure that our industries get the ongoing support that they need, we must plan strategically for the future. That means support, yes, to ensure that our industries do not fall behind their international competitors in the years ahead, but also support that is designed to achieve other important national objectives, not least responding to the environment and climate emergency. Our European neighbours are using this crisis as an opportunity to do just that, and the Government should look to match and even surpass their ambition by coming forward with support that will retain and create jobs, accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy and address a range of regional and wider inequalities—a point made very powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).

  Full debate: Covid-19: Support for UK Industries

• 16 Jun 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  The COP26 summit, now rescheduled for November 2021, will be a critical moment in a fight against runaway global heating. We all have a stake in ensuring that it is a success. Building momentum for that summit and establishing our credibility as its host is dependent on demonstrable leadership at home. In that regard, does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for publishing our nationally determined contribution before the end of 2020, and an arguable case for basing that NDC on a significantly enhanced 2030 target that puts us on the path to achieving net zero?

  Full debate: Climate Change

• 05 Feb 2020: Vote

  Transport - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 4 Sep 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  All such ships must of course comply with international emissions standards. Those are complex, with different standards for nitrogen oxides and sulphur, as well as with greenhouse gases at different tiers, but in general terms they require emissions from vessels to be equivalent to burning 0.1% sulphur fuel or less. That sounds stringent, but those standards need to be set in context. A limit of 0.1% sulphur fuel or less is more than 100 times the amount of sulphur permitted in road diesel.

  Full debate: Vessel Emissions: River Thames

• 25 Jun 2019: Vote

  Delegated Legislation — Value Added Tax - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 24 Jun 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  It has already been mentioned that the intransigence of just four countries held up an EU-wide commitment to binding net zero emissions targets by 2050. Can I press the Prime Minister to expand on what she thinks it would take to change the minds of those four recalcitrant states, and can she say a little about what she will do in advance of this weekend to ensure that a handful of intransigent states does not prevent bold new climate agreements being reached at the G20 summit?

  Full debate: European Council

• 11 Jun 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  T4. The International Development Secretary recently said that he wants to double the UK’s current £1.1 billion commitment to the UN green climate fund. As the UK is yet to do so, will the Minister who has temporary responsibility for our engagement with the UN climate talks assure us today that it is the Government’s intention to commit additional money to the fund?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 5 Jun 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Q8.   Of the many collective challenges we face, none is more essential—more urgent—than climate breakdown. The legislation required to commit the UK to phasing out carbon emissions entirely by mid-century is simple and has almost certainly been drafted, and this House could pass it in a matter of days. This issue is simply too pressing to wait for later this year or a future Administration. We have the parliamentary time, so what possible reason can the Minister give for why the Government cannot commit to enshrine net zero emissions into law now?

  Full debate: Engagements

• 1 May 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  In the short time I have, I want to make three simple points in support of the motion. The first is that it is essential that this House formally declares an environment and climate emergency. I listened to the Environment Secretary, and I do not believe that he formally committed the Government to doing so, but he did recognise that the situation that we face is an emergency—by contrast to what the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth said last week. I will quote what she said, because it struck me at the time:

  We have to stop talking about climate change as though it were some benign force and start talking about what we are really confronting: an ongoing and accelerating crisis from which no one will escape and which will have profound and potentially existential consequences for everything that every one of us holds dear. That is arguably a reason that the Extinction Rebellion movement has struck a chord and it is why—at least to my mind—a degree of alarmism is entirely justified, as long as that fear acts as a clarion call to act, rather than merely provoking a sense of hopelessness. Complacency remains the greatest barrier to the response that is required. We must therefore do everything we possibly can to bring home to the public the nature of the threat we face and to build consensus for the kind of disruptive change that will inevitably have to take place as we respond to it.

  Where, then, is the commitment from the Government to bold policies of the kind that would drive deep decarbonisation across the whole economy and get us back on track? Given all that we know—the fact that the Paris pledges will still amount to 2.7 °C of warming and that we are not on track to meet those pledges—our collective response cannot simply be business as usual. Legislating for net zero emissions by 2050 should be the absolute minimum that we are aiming for, and it should spur a far more ambitious policy agenda.

  My third and final point is that the institutions of government as they are currently organised are simply not set up for the scale and pace of the transition required to avert catastrophic climate breakdown. The abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change three years ago was a serious mistake, but it was also emblematic of a more deep-seated failure on the part of the Government to accord emissions reduction the status it requires. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, I remember repeatedly pressing the then Secretary of State on the inadequacies of the clean growth inter-ministerial group, but at least a body of that kind existed at that time; it does not now. If the Government were really serious about this crisis, their response would be driven relentlessly from the centre, with the institutional architecture put in place to co-ordinate and drive progress across all Departments, with emissions reduction woven throughout Government policy; it is not.

  In all likelihood, we have probably already squandered the opportunity to avert an unprecedented degree of warming, but what we do in the coming 10 to 15 years will determine whether we avert even more drastic change and the suffering that will surely define a world where emissions continue to rise unabated. We must declare an environment and climate emergency, act in a way that is commensurate with such an emergency and reform the machinery of government so that we are able to drive forward this agenda. That is why I will wholeheartedly support the motion this evening.

  Full debate: Environment and Climate Change

• 23 Apr 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  I join others in acknowledging the progress made under successive Governments, but the truth is that, unless the status of emissions reduction is raised in this Government, and the UK’s response to climate crisis is driven vigorously from the centre so that all Departments are forced to act, we will continue to fall short. With that in mind, how well prepared does the Minister think the institutions of Government are for the scale and pace of the transition required?

  Full debate: Climate Change Policy

• 23 Apr 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  The Minister will know that over half of the UK’s planned carbon reduction is tied up in some way or another with EU regulations and that EU agencies are key to enforcement. Assuming that the Government’s new office for environmental protection is ever established, will it have a climate change enforcement remit? If not, why not?

  Full debate: Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

• 19 Feb 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Of course, that is welcome, but it provides little comfort to heat network customers who are not getting a fair deal and for whom every month that passes without effective protections being put in place means continued poor service and expensive bills. That should concern us all deeply, and I know it concerns the Minister, not only because of the Government’s avowed aim to keep customer bills as low as possible, but because of the possibility of the widespread loss of consumer confidence in heat networks, which would make it harder for the UK to decarbonise heat and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.

  As the Minister is aware, if the UK is to meet its future emissions reduction targets, we have to do more to decarbonise heat. The Committee on Climate Change estimates that about 18% of UK heat will need to come from heat networks by 2050 if the UK is to meet those targets cost-effectively. From a consumer protection and an environmental perspective, we cannot allow the benefits of heat networks to be tainted as a result of our failure to address promptly the flaws in the sector before it grows significantly over the next decade.

  Full debate: Heat Networks: Greenwich and Woolwich

• 15 Nov 2017: Parliamentary Speech

  The environmental principles set out in article 191 of the TFEU form an essential component of environmental law; they are not unique to environmental law, but they are principles of environmental law in general. The principles are also found in a number of international environmental treaties to which the UK is a signatory, including the convention on biological diversity, the convention on climate change and the convention on the law of the sea. At present, the UK gives effect to those obligations through its membership of the EU, and particularly through the Lisbon treaty.

  Full debate: European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

• 06 Sep 2016: Vote

  Finance Bill — VAT on Installation of Energy Saving Materials - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 09 May 2016: Vote

  Housing and Planning Bill — Planning obligations and affordable housing - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 03 May 2016: Vote

  Housing and Planning Bill — Neighbourhood right of appeal - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 14 Mar 2016: Vote

  Energy Bill [Lords] — New Clause 8 — Decarbonisation target range - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 14 Mar 2016: Vote

  Energy Bill [Lords] — New Clause 3 — Carbon capture and storage strategy for the energy industry - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 4 Feb 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  but the consequences of not making sufficient progress are stark. As the Prime Minister put it in 2012 during an appearance before the Liaison Committee, if CCS is not available,

  Lack of sufficient progress on CCS will therefore result in either the UK failing to meet its climate change objectives or the Government’s planned expansion in gas-fired generation being obsolete by 2030.

  We know that the technology works. The Prime Minister no longer holds that view, I believe, given his recent remark that he did not think the technology stacks up, but witness after witness who came before the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change during its recent hearings on CCS said that that was plain wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test outlined, 22 projects across the world show that CCS is working. Statoil’s Sleipner West project, now in its 20th year, captures 1 million tonnes of CO 2 a year, and Exxon Mobil’s Shute Creek gas processing plant in Wyoming started in 1986 and captures 7 million tonnes of CO 2 a year. Despite teething problems, the world’s first major commercial power plant to employ CCS, the Boundary Dam project in Canada, will capture 90% of the emissions from that 110 MW coal unit. We know that the technology works. The problem is that, once those 22 projects are up to speed, they will shave only 0.1% off global emissions each year, so we need a strategy for transportation and storage in particular to bring CCS to scale quickly.

  Full debate: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

  It is worth bearing in mind—the Minister touched on this—the context in which the decision was made. Funding was abruptly withdrawn at a time when a number of companies had been working tirelessly for many years to progress their projects, and just weeks before they were expected to submit their bids. Business and investors were given no notice. We heard evidence in the Select Committee that the industry first got wind of this through the Financial Times , when it reported expectations of the Government about that settlement. That was just a few hours before Department of Energy and Climate Change officials posted the notice on the London Stock Exchange and a week after the “reset” speech in which CCS was mentioned as a central part of the Government’s energy policy. To say it was unexpected is an understatement. As a witness in the Select Committee said, it was a shabby way to treat those involved in trying to further this technology.

  “the effect of taking the wind out of our sails. I think the cancellation by UK Government of the competition signals to the market that there is a question mark in the UK Government’s mind over CCS.”

  Full debate: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

  I know it is extremely unlikely. As we touched on at our previous sitting when discussing onshore wind, the Secretary of State has admitted that the Government do not have the right policies in place to meet their targets on heat and transport. From what I can see, they do not even have any institutions within Government to make it happen. We have been told there is an interministerial group on carbon growth but we do not know how many times it has met or what its terms of reference are to drive forward progress in this area. The implication of that, as I will come to, is that we will see greater costs down the line if we do not get serious about CCS.

  We need a strategy. The Minister has explained why she believes the Oil and Gas Authority’s function should not be extended to incorporate the regulation of CCS activity. I disagree with the case she made, but I hope she does not dispute the need for more clarity in this area and for some kind of strategy. In the absence of an effective carbon price, we need to have a comprehensive strategy from the Government on CCS development and deployment. Such a strategy would be formed in consultation with a number of Departments, including the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the OGA and the CCS industry itself, as the clause makes clear.

  The strategy would have to include some of the following elements, which I mention in the hope that the Minister will take them on board. It would need a strategy for maintaining those strategically important pieces of UK-critical infrastructure, such as Peterhead, that have been put at risk by the recent decision to withdraw CCS funding. It would need provisions for the development particularly of transport and storage, to incentivise what we know we need, which is large clusters of CCS, where multiple operations are linked into a single plant, because that is how to get the economies of scale. It would need a strategy to facilitate the industrial application of CCS, particularly in the iron and steel industry, cement production and petrochemicals. Those three sectors account for 45% of CO 2 emissions that need to be captured by 2050.

  Above all, we need a strategy because the private sector needs some certainty about funding, so that it can build confidence, investment and support for CCS projects, importantly where the finances in such projects do not rely on carbon being reinjected to maintain reservoir pressure in producing oil and gas fields. That happens in a large majority of the CCS projects that are up and running, and is, I think, questionable in terms of its long-term impact on climate.

  Why do we need to do this for funding, to touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill? If we do not get a strategy soon, not only will the UK lose direction, but it will cost us a great deal of money. As I said, a significant amount of UK taxpayer money has already been wasted as a result of the abrupt decision to withdraw the £1 billion CCS funding. That is why the National Audit Office is going to look into the matter, and why the companies involved are now seeking to recover the costs they have sunk into the projects. There are other greater and more significant long-term costs at stake: the costs of avoiding dangerous climate change if CCS does not come forward to scale.

  Let me put on the record the assessment of the Energy Technologies Institute. According to the ETS, delays in deployment as a result of the CCS competition cancellation have

  While delays in CCS infrastructure are still likely to mature, the legacy effect of the Government’s decision will in the decades ahead

  Full debate: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

• 2 Feb 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  When it comes to the costs of balancing to account for the increased variability, which is a product of moving towards a more decarbonised and flexible energy system, gas is far, far more expensive than wind. For 2014-15, 7% of the costs of balancing the grid were due to payment to wind. In the equivalent year, the balancing costs associated with gas amounted to £240 million, which is five times as much as the costs associated with wind. So we need to bring some sense to the debate about what these technologies do and, in a sense, approach it—as I hope the Government still do—in a technology-neutral manner.

  Full debate: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

  The worrying signal that this policy has sent, not just for investor confidence, is that the Government have abandoned their previous commitment to a technology-neutral approach at a time when the overriding priority must be decarbonisation at the lowest possible cost, regardless of what technology best aids that. So I support the Bill as it stands and I oppose the amendments.

  Full debate: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

• 18 Jan 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  As has been said, the Bill is mostly concerned with the establishment of the Oil and Gas Authority. How that arrangement adapts to a world of plunging revenues from offshore oil and gas remains to be seen, but there is broad consensus in the House, with notable exceptions, on the need to implement the findings of the Wood review. There is also a robust case, in terms of economics and energy security, for using the resources of the North sea continental shelf to reduce our dependence on foreign imports during the transition to a decarbonised energy system.

  It was disappointing that the Secretary of State dug in her heels with regard to carbon capture and storage, because I welcome the amendments that would expand the principal objective of the UK’s maximising economic recovery strategy to incorporate a regard for CCS development. The precise wording of the relevant clauses will need to be revisited in Committee to ensure that the industry has the necessary flexibility and that jobs and investment are protected, but CCS presents a real opportunity for the North sea oil and gas industry to utilise its technical expertise and skills in a way that will give it a sustainable future for decades to come. That opportunity will not be realised, however, unless we get clarity about the Government’s ambitions for CCS and a strategy to achieve those ambitions. At the moment, all we have is muddle.

  CCS technology, yet eight years on we have a Conservative Chancellor recklessly cutting the funding allocated to help bring forward commercial-scale CCS just weeks before many companies were expected to submit their bids. The abrupt end to funding support for CCS is not an aberration, but is indicative of this Government’s cavalier approach to the energy sector as a whole. That approach was evident in the most controversial aspect of the Bill that originally came before noble Lords in the other place, namely the decision to close the renewables obligation a year earlier than had originally been legislated for in the Energy Act 2013.

  Given the notable lack of progress in decarbonising heat and transport, and of meaningful cross-departmental working to make up lost ground, we will be forced to go further, under the current targets, on renewable electricity. In those circumstances, it is entirely counterproductive to make life more difficult for the cheapest form of renewable energy available. It strikes me that the decision has much more to do with the politics of appeasing Conservative Back Benchers and with the Government’s interpretation of the levy control framework as a fixed-budget envelope—it was never intended to operate in that way. The decision clearly signals that the Government have abandoned their previous commitment to a technology-neutral approach to energy policy at a time when the overriding priority, as hon. Members have said, must be decarbonising at the lowest possible cost.

  Full debate: Energy Bill [Lords]

  This is no way to treat investors or to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place for overseas investment. In all the months I have sat as a member of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, I have not heard one expert witness make the case for indefinite subsidy for onshore wind or any other renewable technology. What many have argued for, often powerfully, is a stable and secure policy environment and a graduated reduction of subsidy. They know that to do otherwise would risk jobs, damage investor confidence and cut the legs from under technologies that we know are delivering—by driving down prices. Those technologies, particularly solar and wind, are great British success stories, and I have heard the Minister describe them as such many times. However, those success stories, at least in the short term, now have a much more uncertain future.

  Full debate: Energy Bill [Lords]

• 14 Dec 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  I also commend the Secretary of State and her officials for the part that they played in securing the Paris agreement. With that agreement in place, Britain will need to be more ambitious, if anything, when it comes to emissions reductions yet the Government are struggling to meet their renewables target, particularly when it comes to heat and transport. As in so many areas, the Chancellor ultimately calls the shots, but will the right hon. Lady let the House know what progress she has made in persuading the Secretary of State for Transport to do more to decarbonise that sector?

  Full debate: Climate Change Agreement

• 8 Dec 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  I support the amendment. We all welcome development and new homes, but I strongly agree that garden cities and corporations, when they are bringing development forward, need to put sustainability and place making at the heart of their plans. That has a particular resonance with something that I am very passionate about, which is climate change and energy efficiency.

  “contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

  We know that homes are central to the UK meeting its climate change targets and that meeting our EU obligations of 15% renewables by 2020 looks ever more precarious; a leaked letter from the Secretary of State only a few weeks back showed that. Homes have a crucial role to play.

  Full debate: Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

• 26 Oct 2015: Vote

  Finance Bill (Ways and Means) (Payment of Corporation Tax) — Chapter 5 — Supplementary provisions - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 08 Sep 2015: Vote

  Bill Presented — Devolution (London) Bill — Clause 45 — CCL: removal of exemption for electricity from renewable sources - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No