State of Climate and Nature

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I did indeed not provide a complete answer to the thought put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on farming. He concentrated mainly on energy and climate change, which is what I responded to particularly. As the noble Baroness will know, we have recently produced the farming road map, a comprehensive road map informed substantially by farmers in the first instance on how we can develop more sustainable farming. Contrary to what the noble Lord says, that does not involve, for example, removing a lot of livestock from farming practices. It involves more sustainable practices in general.

I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the agriculture and land use sector needs to make sure that its emissions go down substantially, as it is one of the two sectors that have flatlined on emissions in recent years. The question is how you do it, rather than simply saying that there are things you must do which are detrimental to the interests of farming. I have already mentioned what is happening with the ELMS arrangements. There are all sorts of other things associated with that, such as low-methane feedstuffs for cattle, which are getting a lot of traction and interest in farming circles. These can reduce emissions substantially without having to cull any livestock or causing people to change their eating patterns or farmers to do things other than farm in a more sustainable way. That is the key to what we are trying to do on farming. I hope the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will support it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words earlier about my contributions—I think they were kind words. I also welcome the Statement from the Minister in the other place, because it was a good Statement. The spending plans sound great, but it is not only about how much you spend but about how you spend it. I often have doubts that Labour really understands that the environment and nature are integral to everything that comes through here, as again and again we see legislation that barely mentions climate change. We are at a point when we have heatwaves, people are dying, “Boris buses” are unbearable and workplaces are too hot to work. Yet this Labour Government have not put climate change into the Sporting Events Bill, the civil aviation Bill or almost any other Bill. Would the Minister suggest to the Government that I can set up some seminars with climatologists so that they understand the importance of putting climate change into all legislation?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Among other things, the actions that the Government have taken—for example, with the Energising Britain plan—are making sure that the question of climate change is not just an issue for one or two areas of government but one that all areas of government have to contribute to. Those different departments will be judged very substantially on their contributions. As this Government have shown already, there is a real sense of joint working, for example in how the National Health Service and the Ministry of Defence are decarbonising and in how various departments are working together to make sure that that overall goal is achieved. I cannot say that I could guarantee a large attendance at seminars that the noble Baroness might put on for that purpose, but she is very welcome to do so. I would certainly come along to a seminar if she wanted to set one up. The point underlining what she says is that nature is essential to the whole process. As I have said, if we neglect one element against the other in our climate change actions, we will not succeed in either.

Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and International Shipping) Regulations 2026

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am very annoyed that the Government and the Opposition keep talking about sustainable aviation fuel. That is a nonsense; it does not exist and it never will. However, I will direct most of my remarks at the regret amendment, which is ludicrous. I cannot even believe we are debating something like this. It is climate-denying nonsense. It is time that everybody understood and read up on the science. We have just had record temperatures for June and could easily be into the hottest year ever recorded. We cannot sit and talk about the economy being more important than the human ecosystem that the economy is destroying. We have to make the economy different.

Here is a better suggestion for debate. We could start naming those heat domes that sit over Europe in the way that we name hurricanes and storms. We could call them “Exxon”, “Texaco”, “BP”, or after any other highly polluting fossil fuel company that created them. We talk about the economy—what do you think will happen when we have the consequences of flooding, heatwaves and droughts? Do you seriously think that will benefit the economy? It absolutely will not. Insurance companies will be hit hard, food supplies will devastated and I will still be calling you clods.

Today, we heard a really anodyne, supercilious answer from Defra about the dangers to our food supply and food security—“No, it’s fine; it’s all sorted out. You don’t have to worry your pretty little heads about it”. That is absolute nonsense. Our food supplies are threatened. If we do not do something about it, we will be very hard hit. The Government are not warning the public about food supplies and food security; they are not moving fast enough. I spoke today to Tim Lang, a professor of food policy who wrote a report for the National Preparedness Commission that has still not been implemented. I suggest that the Government get on it very fast, as well as the Opposition so that they can attack the Government when they do not move fast enough.

I despair that, next year, climate deniers will be saying exactly what this regret amendment says and I will be standing here saying the same thing I am saying now. We will not have moved forward. We will not have made ourselves safer. We will have an economy that is slowly disintegrating because of the impacts of climate change. If we do vote on this ridiculous amendment, can we please all vote against it?

Climate Change: Government Action

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Like the right reverend Prelate, I am very disappointed about the partial breakdown in the consensus that we had on the emergency that climate change represents in this country. It is this Government’s fervent wish that this consensus can be regained. We are already putting a lot of resources into various bodies which can ensure that climate change is discussed fairly and without bias in the public sphere, aiming to get that consensus back again as far as the public are concerned.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the King’s Speech did mention climate change. He said that his Government would be a “leading advocate” in the fight against climate change, yet there is not a single policy specifically about nature or the environment in the whole speech, in the whole government agenda. Given that and given that nature and the environment underpin our economic security, our food security and our productivity, when are the Government going to take this whole issue seriously and produce some policies where nature is supported?

Carbon Budget 6

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether their policies and plans will deliver Carbon Budget 6.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

Carbon budget 6, which was set out in 2021 and is current from 2033 to 2037, was subject to several legal challenges. It is now in the hands of the present Government. The Secretary of State carried out a full and rigorous assessment of the package, policies and proposals prior to publishing the recent Carbon budget and growth delivery plan and concluded that they will enable carbon budget 6 to be met. He will continue to monitor policy delivery and keep the package under review.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for the Answer. You can imagine this is something that concerns me, because the previous Government lost two court cases about this as they were not going to achieve what they were aiming for. We have just had carbon budget 7. I am quite curious about whether this Government have really done the right risk assessments. The previous national security assessment said that nature damage will cost 12% of GDP by 2030 relative to what could have been achieved. If Labour are interested in GDP, it really ought to sort itself out on the issue of the environment.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

We do not have the announcement of carbon budget 7 until the summer. The noble Baroness might care to think about what the process of looking again at carbon budget 6 was after those legal judgments. Indeed, the Government have taken a much more robust approach to developing the plan, which has allowed us to make a much clearer and more rational assessment of the savings that will enable carbon budgets to be met and to quantify them fully.

We have also quantified a number of real-world trends that are rather important today, and which are shaping our society and economy. That means our assessment reflects how we would expect the world to change as we accelerate towards net zero. None of these things were done when the previous Administration set out carbon budget 6—indeed, they were part of the legal challenge to those budgets. That is the reason why we consider that carbon budget 6 can be met, in addition to which a number of new policies and directions have come forward since this new Government took office.

COP Climate Negotiations: Cities

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I think that is one-all now.

The noble Lord will be well aware that we have founded, among other things, Great British Energy, which has a substantial brief within it to promote low-carbon and community-based energy groups— 100 local projects up and down the country, which will very much relate low-carbon and climate change futures with local populations and, of course, make sure that the contributions that come forth from those projects are UK-based.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, C40 was set up in 2005 by the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone; at that point it was C20, with only 20 cities. Now there are 96 cities, with a quarter of the global economy and a twelfth of the world’s population. They are driving the fight against climate change and deserve a seat at the negotiations. I ask the Government to rethink their decision not to invite them.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness puts forward an accurate picture of how the C40 group was originally founded. I was not going to mention in this Chamber that it was founded by Ken Livingstone because I was worried that some of the responses might not be as positive as the noble Baroness’s. She is right that the original group of 18 has expanded to a huge international co-ordination group of 90-plus cities. That is why, among other things, the UK Government are one of the relatively few sovereign contributors to the C40’s work and its projects, running to multi-million pounds. The UK is very keen to make sure that those groups go forward, but it is a question of how the multilevel representation comes forward within the COP process overall.

Drax

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the environmental credentials of Drax in view of the new investigation by Stand.earth which reported that Drax had purchased logged trees from old growth forests in British Columbia in 2024.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

I have read the report to which the noble Baroness refers with interest, and there are questions both for Drax and for the authors of the report. Compliance with biomass sustainability requirements under Drax’s existing subsidy arrangement is a matter for Ofgem, but we work closely with it to ensure that these arrangements remain fit for purpose. Ofgem’s detailed investigation into Drax in 2024 did not find evidence that unsustainable biomass had been used by Drax, but shortcomings in data governance were identified and Ofgem has required Drax to commission a global supply chain audit, which is currently ongoing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, which goes a bit further than I expected. Drax specifically claims to stop sourcing from old-growth deferral areas and old-growth management areas in British Columbia, but the majority of old-growth forests fall outside those designations. Will the Minister and the Government suggest to Ofgem that it should not accept Drax’s definition of old growth and perhaps exclude the majority of British Columbia old-growth forests from subsidies?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

There are two points to make in response to the noble Baroness. The report to which she refers talks only circumstantially about old-growth forests and not old-growth forests that are in any way directly sourced by Drax. As regards the new contract for difference for the next four years that the Government have entered into with Drax, the criterion is now 100% sustainability, which obviously excludes old-growth forests.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s, to his seat in your Lordships’ House and to the Dispatch Box. It was wonderful to hear such a green-minded speech; over the past few years, they have become more common here, but they are still very welcome. I particularly liked his commenting on protecting and repairing our ocean and high seas. It is absolutely crucial that we understand how much damage we have done already and that we try our best to recover it if we can.

The UK was one of the first countries to sign up to the UN agreement on the law of the sea, and we have been active in shaping the treaty, so it makes sense to pass this Bill as soon as possible. I want to flag up some reasons why this agreement is a good idea but also what protections Ministers should seek next. The good things are as follows. It is good for UK science: our very own National Oceanography Centre is one of the world leaders in ocean scientific research, and this Bill will ensure that marine science and technology can develop to further understand and meet the demands of a changing climate. It is good for marine life and ecosystems: our oceans are full of beautiful things, and protecting our oceans ensures that that beauty survives. We are far too careless about such a precious complex of ecosystems that we barely know anything about. It is also good for UK food security: a thriving sea is full of life, and some of that life can help to sustain our lives and our economy. We must regulate and manage the competition for marine genetic resources that can be used to support the development of new drugs, cosmetics, food and industrial processes.

But, currently, our oceans are collapsing under the strains of plastic pollution, bottom trawling, massive mining projects, toxic dumping and climate change. It is this combined assault on ecosystems that will collapse life in the seas. These problems make international treaties crucial and urgent. The scale of this agreement is huge. It will help to protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans. It has the kind of vision that will help us to deal with the rapidly developing impacts of climate change. However, as is usual with this Government and the last, Ministers are trying to grab additional powers via secondary legislation. It would make sense to increase parliamentary scrutiny of secondary powers. Good policy requires accountability.

We need to ensure that our Government listen to a range of experts, not just to those people with loads of cash who can use money and personal contacts to gain access to the detailed discussions. My biggest concerns are monitoring and enforcement: I simply do not understand how those two things will happen in any sort of efficient way. I would like us to become a world leader in pushing for the establishment of marine protected areas in places beyond national jurisdiction. We should be aiming to protect 30% of the world’s marine areas by 2030—and I do mean “protect”. For example, Greenpeace has found that 90% of our marine protected areas are not really protected at all. There is no meaningful site-wide regulation of the most destructive fishing activity. Greenpeace says of our MPA protection that it is rhetoric over reality, and I think this treaty could be the same. Being a world leader means enforcing the strictest regulation of the existing marine protected areas in UK territorial waters, with an end to bottom trawling and devastating mining operations. I hope that the Minister will help us to do that in a very fast way.

So far, the Trump Administration have not ratified the treaty and have pursued issuing deep-ocean mining licences unilaterally, ignoring the UN-backed International Seabed Authority. The demand for mining minerals is rising, when we barely know anything about our deep seabed. We must also end the public subsidy of pollution within freeports, as we saw up in Teesside, when the dredging of industrial chemicals that had been buried for decades allegedly led to the mass deaths of crabs and lobsters along the north-east coast of England. More deregulation of freeports will mean more environmental problems and more taxpayer money spent cleaning up the mess at a future date.

While I am sure that most here would like this Bill to pass so that we can sign up to international law, 30 days before the ratification, I would say that it does not go far enough to protect our ocean. Can the Minister tell me how strongly this Government will live up to the rhetoric?

Licensed Oil and Gas Fields: Emissions

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to assess the ‘scope 3 emissions’ of licensed oil and gas fields, and what impact they have on their emission reduction targets.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have consulted on supplementary environmental guidance relating to emissions from burning extracted oil and gas. We are working towards publication of finalised guidance as soon as possible. Emissions produced by burning oil and gas are accounted for in our domestic targets for the sectors which use these fuels. Emissions are not accounted for in carbon budgets if this fuel is burned outside the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be with me in expressing concern about the collision in the North Sea and in sending hope to the rescue services, the sailors and, of course, all marine life.

I thank the Minister for his Answer. That was exactly what I was concerned about. Once the gas and oil are extracted, the total emissions should then be accounted for, on the assumption that it will all be burned, whether or not it is exported or moved somewhere else.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I join the noble Baroness in expressing my sympathy to all concerned in the tragic events that have taken place in the North Sea. I also agree with her that we should pay tribute to the emergency services—and, of course, we are very concerned about the environmental impact.

I ought to explain to the House that scope 1 emissions are direct company emissions that occur from sources owned or controlled by the company. Scope 2 are indirect emissions resulting from generation of purchased energy, typically electricity, or purchased heat. Scope 3 are all indirect emissions not included in scope 2 that occur in the value chain of the reporting company and include downstream and upstream emissions—if noble Lords wished to know what those scopes were.

The point here is that we would be double-counting the emissions—or that is the risk—if we went down the route that the noble Baroness suggests. We had this consultation in the light of the Finch judgment, because we needed to revise the environmental impact assessment to take account of scope 3 emissions. We are carefully considering the consultation at the moment, and it would be premature for me to say anything more at this stage.

Climate Change

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, clearly, these are matters for individual companies to decide, but I say to the noble Earl that notwithstanding individual decisions made by such companies, overall, we are seeing a massive expansion in renewable and low-carbon energy throughout the world. Of course, the Paris Agreement and the nationally determined contributions that countries are making towards it will spearhead the move towards a low-carbon, low-emission economy. Whatever setbacks there may be, we must continue to work on that basis.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, do the Government agree with Bermuda and countries that are suggesting a tax on kerosene jet fuel? It is a pollutant that is currently untaxed, and the idea is that the money from that tax should go into a fund that poorer countries can access in order to set up their own renewable energy systems.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

No, my Lords, I am not aware that the Government are looking at that suggestion favourably. However, the offer we made at COP 29 for an 81% emission reduction by 2035 is a very substantive offer indeed. We need to work towards that. We also have to work towards the seventh carbon budget. We received the advice on how we will do that from the Climate Change Committee only last week, and that is where we should focus our efforts.

Drax Power Limited: Ofgem Investigation

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, it is not for Ministers to tell Ofgem how to regulate; we have to rely on its rigorous approach. Secondly, in the US and Canada, we depend on the rigorousness of the regulators locally. Ofgem’s job is to ensure that, as a whole, sustainability criteria are correct. I do not believe that it would be fair to say that Ofgem is not doing a thorough job. That is not my experience.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is clear that this Government know that what is coming from Drax is not renewable energy. At the moment, every single energy bill payer in Britain pays Drax for renewable energy. It is not renewable; the company emits 12 million tonnes of carbon a year. The Government know that and choose to allow international regulations to cover it up.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not recognise what the noble Baroness says. It is true that Drax is an emitter of carbon but that is offset—netted off—by the new forestry growth that takes place and absorbs the carbon. This is not a fanciful notion by the Government; the International Energy Agency, the IPCC and the Committee on Climate Change all accept that biomass, as long as sustainability criteria are applied and accepted, is in that way a low-carbon renewable energy.