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

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I have three brief points to make and three questions for the Minister, and I hope in speaking to avoid the hysteria noticeable in some speeches this evening.

My first point is that this whole ETS approach is yet another failed attempt at “We know best”. I could give many examples, but perhaps the most interesting recent one is that with the recent collapse of scenario RCP 8.5—on which much of the climate catastrophists’ claims have been based in the past couple of decades—and with the complete collapse as being agreed as no longer plausible, those catastrophist claims can now be seen as disinformation. That is a good reason for the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to understand why change is needed. By 2050, despite the “net zero” words, 50% of aviation fuel will still be fossil fuel. Again, so-called clean fuels, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, so eloquently said, are not at all carbon zero. Does the Minister agree that the whole ETS is built on shaky foundations and is better off abandoned?

My second point is that the ETS market itself is a confected artefact. The intent was to create a free market in carbon. In fact, it is all government controlled and that is the direct opposite of a free market. In the end, and at the moment, 100% goes to government, so it is just another tax. It does not reduce carbon generation; it just transfers it to another country. Economic activity here is lower; economic activity elsewhere is higher. Does the Minister accept that the ETS is, in essence, another way of generating tax to “pay for more benefits”, in the words of one of his own MPs?

My third point is that it ends up as yet another hit to economic activity in the UK. Net zero has already hollowed out the economy. Adding ETS for aviation and shipping just worsens it. The ETS carbon price has gone from £34 to £70—so there is a cost, despite what the Minister claimed. Refineries have spent some £175 million on ETS and aircraft operators have spent over £200 million. There is a cost to all this. Our economy suffers, while not a dent is made in global carbon emissions. In India they recently increased their number from 74 to 164 airports, and they are adding another 50—there is no ETS there. Will the Minister agree that charging the ETS on aviation and shipping further damages our four remaining refineries, the only manufacturing entities that incur this in the UK, further accelerating the deindustrialisation of our nation?